Nature: Simple Switch Turns Cells Embryonic

Science is grand. I just hope I live long enough to see the fruits of these remarkable developments. I may have been born a generation or two early.

Equally sad, I don't see the religious zealots allowing me to grow my own clone to be used for spare parts anytime soon.

You would only use your clone for spare parts? I would definitely use mine for work.

This--or any--alternative method for procuring embryonic stem cells won't significantly alter the discussion. The groups that actively oppose it do not think for themselves and the persons who organize them and speak for them aren't intellectually honest.

For example, if the opponents of this research truly oppose it only because it involves the destruction of embryos, then it seems curious that these people are interested mainly in abortion and this research. Artificial means of reproduction create many more embryos than any customer would want to bring to full term. They also can't be frozen indefinitely. The unused embryos are eventually discarded. Why aren't these people threatening families with newborns in addition to targeting abortion clinics? Why do they insist that any kind of research involving unwanted embryos is worse than throwing them into the trash? There seems to be a set of ulterior motives here.

Be prepared for the "culture warriors" to question whether or not the situation has changed. Then prepare for them to declare--without any sense of irony--that they're members of a "culture of life". . .who just happen to support participation in war and capital punishment. (I really doubt many of the missing links who find James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to be inspiring religious leaders are aware that they're cribbing concepts from the Roman Catholic Church when they refer to the "Culture of Life." They'd probably implode if they realized that.)

Agreed, a brainless clone would end the transplant list.

I'm not dismissing them. Their total lack of intellectual honesty just really angers me. (I actually support a consistent view of the sanctity of human life: war, capital punishment, and abortion are all things I find undesirable.)

If the opposition really is mostly concerned with "creating human life for the sole purpose of experimenting on it," why do these people object to using the unwanted products of reproductive therapy? Surely, the potential life would be better honored furthering medical research rather than filling a medical waste container. Also, why are they so interested in abortion and stem cell research and not with the unintended consequences of reproductive therapy? I've never once been confronted by a protester with pictures of frozen viable embryos. These concerns--and the fact that many of the people involved in the "prof-life" movement also support capital punishment and participation in war--lead me to believe that the major players in that movement are more concerned with their assault on science and reproductive rights than the sanctity of human life.

Cuchulain is basically making the single most cogent point in the stem-cell debate, and it's one that is almost never addressed. Not even by the pro-experimentation people. That shows, to me, how emotional and reflexive these kinds of debates have become.

I'd have dozens of clones with multiple occupations. They'd eat generic brand toasted oats with powdered milk for every meal and have no motivation other than to please me.

I predict millionare status in less than 1 year.

C'mon, didn't anyone see MULTIPLICITY? That movie sucked! Do you want your life to become a bad movie?

Moltisanti, you just sit right back the fuck down.

Reporter: Mr Wayne, just how gay is Batman...really?

Keaton: This is the hand I use to spank Robin!