Option to embryonic stem cells found
It seems that there is no reason to pursue the macabre process of killing human embryos in order to harvest stem cells for medical purposes, or even using cells from aborted babies.
Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh say that they've found an alternative that works just as well: amniotic epithelial cells, which share the embryonic cells' capacity to develop into any of various different kinds of tissue. Moreover, Japanese researchers have already confirmed the validity of some of the Pitt scientists' findings.
If this discovery holds up, sad to say, there will probably be people on the social Left who will actually be disappointed. After all, a chance to further desensitize the public to the killing of the unborn will have gone by the boards.
Heard about this on the news? Didn't think so.
Comments
I quote myself in the passage to which you take exception:
"If this discovery holds up, sad to say, there will probably be people on the social Left who will actually be disappointed. After all, a chance to further desensitize the public to the killing of the unborn will have gone by the boards."
Dana, do you really presume to argue that I am wrong? To you have the chutzpah to suggest that there is no liberal, anywhere, who would not be disappointed that the argument in favor of abortion on demand presented by the supposed good which allegedly could only result from embryonic stem sell therapy would then have been destroyed? If so, then I would say that we have plenty of evidence that you have simply closed your mind to the evidence of the rhetoric of those in question, which evidence consists in abundance!
Hey, Dana! It's just a bunch of cells! What difference does it make? If you disagree with that morally absurd argument- and I have never for a moment even suggested that there are not those on the social Left, including those who are pro-choice, who do- then on what basis would you rejoice?
No, Dana. The evidence that there are those extremists on the Left for whom abortion is a positive good is present in their very rhetoric to that effect! All you need to do is open your ears to the arguments of NARAL, NOW, and other such extremist organizations!
I would say the evidence, rather, is that you have done something more than refuting an argument I never made. Rather, you have fallen into the trap of demonizing all with whom you disagree instead of debating them- using your characterization of me as an "ultra-conservative" (a label which you would find difficult to sustain if you were acquainted with my political positions in detail) as if it were something it is not: an argument. Regrettably, this is all too typical of those on your side of the political spectrum.
You guys are the ones whose arguments consist pretty much entirely of calling those with whom you disagree names. For someone on the Left to accuse someone ont he Right of "hate bias," especially in the context of an argument as badly-reasoned as yours, is ironic, to say the least!
Care to try again?
Didn't think so.
The example you give, "ALL would be overjoyed," is a biased leap, as you say. What Bob said, however, was not a biased leap, because he didn't say, or even come close to saying, that ALL liberals would be upset. He said SOME would be, which is all the difference in the world, and leaves you no foundation on which to protest.