Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat
Just for clarity my response was to Lotus' post, which in turn was a comment on other peoples comments indicating opposition to "stem cell research."
No sane person is opposed to "stem cell research." SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research for ethical reasons. That is the context of my post. It wasnt a rant on stem cell research by someone who didnt read the article, because i did read the article.
The purpose of my post was to explain why SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research -a distinction Lotus didnt make in his post by just referring to "stem cell research" in the general sense. The distinction is important.
|
Not really, because Lotus' point was that people would get into histrionics at the mere mention of stem cell research (ie AW's post) instead of looking at the facts that make it a viable research alternative. In fact your response was, in my opinion, exactly the response Lotus was saying was frustrating. If I want to talk about effective US stem cell therapies then by definition, and US laws, I am not talking about Embryonic stem cells.
You introduced that topic, and now here we are ranting on it, rather than just talking about how fascinating valid stem cell therapy may become.