152
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + + + +
→"that involves the killing and cloning of human embryos"
::This is a touchy issue for those who believes that embryos are human. Please be sensitive to your fellow contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a touchy issue for those who believes that embryos are human. Please be sensitive to your fellow contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::I try to be. However I dont see editorializing about Michael Moore and opinions on Stem Cells in an entry on Howard Stern actually contributes anything. To say embryonic stem cell research "involves the killing and cloning of human embryos" is as it may be and is perhaps an acceptable (if loaded) opinion in a discussion on stem cells. It is not appropriate to a discussion on Howard Stern to detail what this one person thinks about this particular field of medical research. If it is, then at what point can you stop it at all? Why not have the article on Howard Stern just outright hijacked by a debate then?
::"Stern is in favor of embryonic stem cell research which involves the killing and cloning of human embryos, but is seen by many as a necessary and vital step in medical research with the potential to save untold numbers of lives, although that salvation surely comes at a moral cost given the nature of the research, however some would argue that it is morally permissable to terminate the life of non-sentient cellular clusters to save a human, but how can you say that they're only cellular clusters when you're very clearly committing homicide on infants, but they're not really infants they havent even developed a nervous system, but they have a soul, and if they're not baptised then they'll burn in hell for the sake of your medical research, and is that what you want? Is it?!
::Stern also considers Ralph Nader to be a personal hero."
::Its unnecessary editorializing to describe, in loaded, opinionated language, what Stem Cell research is in an obvious attempt to attack the man in an already loaded article ("attempts at humor" in the opening sentence lets us know outright what the opinion being put forth is, so much for non-biased) as is saying "Stern even had Michael Moore on his show once! Can you believe that? Can you!? HUH!?!?" and saying that one particular episode with extraordinarily offensive content is "Typical." Its loaded language, its unnecessary, and it has no place whatsoever in any place that pretends to take itself seriously.
::Funny thing how I'm always having to explain myself and what I do and still watch it undone. Not surprising of course given the nature of this site, just funny. "An encyclopedia you can trust" indeed.
::--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 16:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::There is much stem cell research that is done without going to human cell lines at all. Furthermore, look at the HeLa line (not a stem cell, but an example of a cell line). One can also obtain stem cells from umbilical chords and there is work being done to isolate stem cells from adults. These are all approaches that are not in conflict with Howard Stern's stance on stem cell research. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::There is much stem cell research that is done without going to human cell lines at all. Furthermore, look at the HeLa line (not a stem cell, but an example of a cell line). One can also obtain stem cells from umbilical chords and there is work being done to isolate stem cells from adults. These are all approaches that are not in conflict with Howard Stern's stance on stem cell research. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)