why didnt i think of that :O
Though now a days we dont need to do all this lab testing (somewhat sad about it though), we do computational chemistry now. I dont know hippies dislike us testing it on mice with their similar genetic patterns as humans, yet when their mothers, fathers are dying in ICU they turn to science and go "where is the cure?". What a thing if you let me use some stems cells I couldve grown you a new heart.... too bad
Last edited by RiaX; 04-08-2012 at 11:03 PM.
LOL im aware how its done. When an abortion is done where you think that foetus goes? they go to teach embryology in anatomy labs where they sliced into thin pieces and put in display in a cabinate. I was there I saw the foetus at 3 months 6 months and 9 months (these arent aborted usually stillborn) in jars.
Also you dont need foetal stem cells, adult stem cells are extracted from bone marrow, usually they use the femur as the site. Suggest you do some reading from begining to end :P, wont grow a brand new heart but we cant say because medicine hasnt had the time to study proper foetal stem cells, and its this cloud of ethics that prohibit it and thats why cellphone technology is progressing at a faster rate than medicine.
Out of all the things I said you pick on a side comment O.o ?!? really
Last edited by RiaX; 04-08-2012 at 11:26 PM.
Their conclusion is that more research needs to be done on embryonic stem cells. I disagree. Even if the process can be perfected it does not solve the other problems. It would be like knowing how to make the bricks but not having a plan for the house yet. It is also not a desirable solution in terms of rejection. What is needed is to preferably use a patient's own cells and not donor material. Once that is perfected focus can shift to turning them into undifferentiated cells.
On another note our biology teacher had a bottled fetus in her class...
I want to sleep but my brain won't stop talking to itself
no philosophical, ethical. The embryo must die to harvest the cells
So. Not a single sound logical and or scientific objection to evolution. And seeing as the only one trying philosophical objections ie "I really really really really really don't want evolution to be a fact" can now post in the philosophical subforum; I think we can try and get back to the OP's request and wait for any of those, actual sound logical and or scientific objections.
You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.
MOD NOTE: Deleted some posts that went off topic. The thread dictates science and logic be used in the debate. Religion is not allowed to enter the discussion. I am religious myself, but have respect for the idea behind this thread. Start another in an appropriate part of the forum to discuss religious elements to the topic.