[ExI] Another breakthrough paper!

[spike]

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson
...
> 
> >  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071120092709.htm
> >This could really be revolutionary, it's a cheap and easy way to get
> >personalized embryonic steam cells, immune rejection will not be a
> >problem, and even the Bible thumpers can't find anything to complain
> about.
> 
> Don't bet on it. First time someone produces a human clone from one
> of those cells, what are they going to say about the casual use of
> millions of them to repair a heart? Murderer! Keith

Ah yes, the save-every-sperm crowd.  {8^D

I tend to take a more optimistic view of this conflict.  The most vocal
bible thumpers tend to be biblical literalists.  I can assure you there is
nothing in the bible that says anything about taking one's own cells and
modifying them in the lab, then using them for medicinal purposes.  

The argument is very easy.  If some vocal religionist argues this technique
is against some vague ethical principle, one must ask "What ethical or
religious principle?"  Suggestions?  If they argue these techniques defeat
death, the counter arguments are so obvious they scarcely require
mentioning.  One example would then be to ask if their objections apply to
all medicine, for instance.  I expect few to go there.

This has been pioneered by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the medical
experimentalist and influential christian ethicist in the 19th century.
Perhaps his greatest contribution to medical ethics was a strong form of the
notion that any objection to any medical procedure must have a specific
citation from scripture.  If for instance, he was accused of playing god, he
might ask the objector to demonstrate a scripture which specifically forbids
playing god (whatever that means.)  

spike