News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Man's eye saved by stem cells. Parent comment

Re:Man's eye saved by stem cells by prewett on Wednesday December 23, 2009 @12:19PM (#1012387)
As I understand it, embryonic stem cells (the ones that were banned) are acquired by basically destroying a human embryo. I don't think it is "very bad mixing up of religion and politics" to ban destroying what can be considered a life. You might disagree whether the life is worth saving, but the embryo is undeniably living. You might disagree as to whether a human embryo is human enough that killing it constitutes killing a person. But if one's religious ethics are that killing an embryo == killing a person, I think it is reasonable politics to ban embryonic stem cells.

EDIT: clarity

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Man's eye saved by stem cells by jacquesm on Wednesday December 23, 2009 @12:43PM (#1012422)
As I understand it those embryos were going to be destroyed anyway. The difference being that now they might be used to further research. It's not like the embryos were created to be destroyed for research, they're a by-product of fertility enhancing procedures.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Man's eye saved by stem cells by patio11 on Wednesday December 23, 2009 @01:38PM (#1012540)
In the interest of empathizing with the other side, here's what this sounds like if you're pro-life: "As I understand it, there were Africans who were going to die in Africa anyhow. The difference being that now we might get some use out of them. Its not like we went to Africa for the slaves, they're just a by-product of the resource exploitation."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Man's eye saved by stem cells by jacquesm on Wednesday December 23, 2009 @02:50PM (#1012698)
That's one of the most warped analogies that I've ever seen.
[ Parent | on HN ]