Replies

How does he know? Can he see into the future?

These are your words. You made an arrogant challenge that had nothing to do with ethics.

I am for stem cell research. I don't consider it cannibalism as he does.

The ethical discussion is incomplete without establishing the effectiveness of the procedures and science. Before we throw limited resources after Frankensteinian science and voodoo cannibalism, maybe we should determine if there is any future in this procedure. The clinicians and scientists I know rightly call it political medicine. You however are for a dangerous and ineffective treatment that the leaders in both Parkinsonian and Alzheimer treatment do not believe in. Why would you embrace an immoral and dangerous treatment, taking resources away from promising cures in contradiction to the actual expert opinion? Is this your definition of ethics?

Sometimes you have to read through the thread before you realize what bent the discussion is taking before you attack someone.

Maybe you should heed your own words and keep your own arrogance and pretentiousness in check. Read what is available on Medline. Read what others have posted. Accept that tragic human experiments have already taken place resulting in death to patients. Ponder for awhile the evil and the arrogance of using fetal tissue to kill patients in the race to establish the rightness of "political medicine".

The ethical discussion is incomplete without establishing the effectiveness of the procedures and science. efore we throw limited resources after Frankensteinian science and voodoo cannibalism, maybe we should determine if there is any future in this procedure.

How do we condemn all research at such an early point? Isn't experimentation how you discover new applications?

The clinicians and scientists I know rightly call it political medicine.

So, you know the all doctors and scientists involved in the study of stem cell research?

You however are for a dangerous and ineffective treatment that the leaders in both Parkinsonian and Alzheimer treatment do not believe in.

I never said it was limited to Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. I am for research for any benefits. Why do you limit the discusion to those diseases?

Why would you embrace an immoral and dangerous treatment, taking resources away from promising cures in contradiction to the actual expert opinion? Is this your definition of ethics?

Limiting research and testing shows a selfishness of opinion. Is research funding so limited that you can't do both?

From MGHinTn: Perhaps James's approach is better ... I've been pounding on the Truth that the stem cells targeted (in ESC research) are the body parts of the fetus at his or her earliest age.

I don't see where he was restricting his condemnation of stem cell research to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. I sure sounds like he was condemning all stem cell research. Are you against all stem cell research? While it may not yet show results for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's in advanced stages what about early treatment. If we followed your moral code we would have no stem cell research or experimentation. Why limit thinking on this issue?