That's apparently the best you can do, cast lame insults. And what's worse... it's not that good at all. It's not accurate, it's not relevant and it does not aid your arguement. But the worst part is that it's not witty. That's just sad.
Posted on 09/03/2006 1:55:46 PM PDT by Coleus
As Chad Kingsbury watches his daughter playing in the sandbox behind their suburban Chicago house, the thought that has flashed through his mind a million times in her two years of life comes again: Chloe will never be sick.
Not, at least, with the inherited form of colon cancer that has devastated his family, killing his mother, her father and her two brothers, and that he too may face because of a genetic mutation that makes him unusually susceptible.
By subjecting Chloe to a genetic test when she was an eight-cell embryo in a petri dish, Mr. Kingsbury and his wife, Colby, were able to determine that she did not harbor the defective gene. That was the reason they selected her, from among the other embryos they had conceived through elective in vitro fertilization, to implant in her mother’s uterus.
Prospective parents have been using the procedure, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or P.G.D., for more than a decade to screen for genes certain to cause childhood diseases that are severe and largely untreatable.
Now a growing number of couples like the Kingsburys are crossing a new threshold for parental intervention in the genetic makeup of their offspring: They are using P.G.D. to detect a predisposition to cancers that may or may not develop later in life, and are often treatable if they do.
For most parents who have used preimplantation diagnosis, the burden of playing God has been trumped by the near certainty that diseases like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia will afflict the children who carry the genetic mutation that causes them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Because it takes too much redefinition.
It's not true to alchemists and assorted ideolgical moonbats. In science, it is a statement of fact. Embryo's are capable of living which is the defintition of viable. The defintition of viable is NOT 'will live'. The science is clear, real science that is.
The real question is:
How many cat embryos are viable human beings?
Answer: None.
Kangaroo or ostrich?
LOL. What can one say to this scientific pronouncement? I'm speechless but still curious, just what the hell species did you belong to?
Not really. One can take an honest position, acknowledge that embryo's are nascent human life and still advocate killing them for utilitarian purposes. I don't agree with that postition morally but at least it is a scientifically honest one. The crap you and the other clown are selling is simply dishonest bs.
You see the difference?
That's apparently the best you can do, cast lame insults. And what's worse... it's not that good at all. It's not accurate, it's not relevant and it does not aid your arguement. But the worst part is that it's not witty. That's just sad.
It doesn't take my best or anybody's to dispose of you and your security bunny. Just average will do.
> Similarly dead cells can not be reanimated into live cells through natural processes.
And what "natural process" allows half a dozen cells in a petri dish to transmorgrify into a ten-pound baby?
> It doesn't take my best or anybody's to dispose of you ...
Dispose of me. Hmm. Interesting choice of words.
LOL, you are truly dim. It please me no end when the technocrats reveal just how dim they can be. Keep digging! :-}
> you are truly dim.
Believe as you wish.
Only to loons sitting in their dugouts wrapped in foil and crooning to their security bunnies.
But if you feel aggrieved, report me to the admin folks. I'm sure they will enjoy laughing at you as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.