Harvard Scientists to Clone Human Embryos 592
An anonymous reader writes "Harvard University scientists claim they will soon start trying to clone human embryos to create stem cells. Even with the history of controversy and fraud researchers hope they can one day use the newly created stem cells to aid in battle against many diseases. From the article: 'The privately funded work is aimed at devising treatments for such ailments as diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, sickle-cell anemia and leukemia. Harvard is only the second American university to announce its venture into the challenging, politically charged research field.'"
Would someone... (Score:2, Insightful)
No. That joke's tasteless. I won't.
Controvesy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a few years ago the Pope told Steven Hawking that though the Catholic Church believed in the theory of the big bang, what happened before that was the hand of God and not to be meddled into be humans.
If we could rid ourselves of silly arbitrary superstitions great advancements in science will follow.
Great advancements occurred irregardless (Score:2)
Yeah... Sure. Isaac Newton spent time researching alchemy than actually working on physics. Roger Bacon came up with the scientific method. Copernicus came up with the theory of the heliocentric model of physics.
Re:Controvesy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank God (if you like) for "superstition" (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, if only scientists could be free to walk under ladders and break mirrors, their experiments would be much easier to carry out.
Oh, wait, by "silly superstitions," you meant ideas like "life is sacred because God created it." Ideas accepted and elaborated by great minds throughout the centuries, which you so easily dismiss.
Even without considering whether those "superstitions" are based on truth,
Re:Controvesy? (Score:3, Insightful)
At first, religion could be magnanimous with Science. There was just so staggeringly much in the universe that man didn't understand, that the gains from our understanding a little more of it were worth the loss of a little of the mystery of the unknown that fuels religious power.
Over time, though, those losses added up. People began to realize that if we were able to understand so many of the mysteries t
Survival of the Fittest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:4, Funny)
As a group were are not first rate homo sapiens.
There is natural selection and sexual selection. As long as ugly people, stupid people and politians* keep getting laid we will always be a race of second rate homo sapiens.
* (also people who drive slow in the fast lane, people that try to take out a second mortgage through the ATM machine, RIAA lawyers, people that answer cell phones in the theatre, most of my ex girlfriends (but not their hot girlfriends), terrorists, people involved in the Garfield movie, the religious right, all those bullies from gym class, fanatics of any kind, people who like onions, dog owners that dont scoop, the people who invented rebate pricing, people who fart in the elevator just as the doors close and telemarketers. )
** NOTE TO MODERATORS: I would really prefer a +1 interesting over a +1 Funny.
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:3, Funny)
* (also people who drive slow in the fast lane, people that try to take out a second mortgage through the ATM machine...
Also people who say "ATM machine" and "PIN number".
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not. We're still constrained by survival of the fittest, just like always. It's the environment that's changing.
Some people get advanced degrees and don't have kids. Some die crossing the street as children and don't reproduce. Etc. Etc. The rate of death before reproduction is still perfectly reasonably high, so the species is getting 'better' as much as any species
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:2)
you think it'll take 25000 years for changes to appear in the human race? Records over the past 1000 years alone show increased average height, larger brain cases and so on. A child looks like its parent - but also has variations from both parents. Step changes in evolution happen every few generations, or at a stretch every few tens of generations - not ever
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:3, Informative)
The changes in humans over the last thousand years are believed to be mostly nutritional, and it's likely we've seen most of the improvement we're going to see from that (note that developing countries, such as China are experiencing a height boom, and it's not from intermarrying with us). Plus our population pool is now much larger, so any drift is going to be that much slower to get established as a widespread preference.
Every citation I cou
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:2)
Because homosapiens use intelligence to be the most fit to survive. That's why we're kicking ass!
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:2)
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:2)
here [thisislondon.co.uk] you go.
I even read a story about a woman losing her husband in an accident, but there was still some sperm of him frozen somewhere and she had still his child. I couldn't be bothered to look up a link for that though...
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree for the most part of your analysis. The way I see it, there are only three possibilites:
We *will* all die at some point.
We will *all* die at some point.
We will all *die* at some point.
That is why the accent should be not on saving presentnly living on any cost, but on creating well ballanced (taking into account statsistical survivability...) number of new. T
Evoloution has no morals (Score:3, Funny)
why can't the people who object to this just put themselves on a 'do not clone register'.
Full support! (Score:5, Funny)
Nice timing, Harvard. (Score:5, Funny)
Morality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Morality? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Morality? (Score:2)
Why does the life of an orphaned baby, with no family, home, or even guarantee of survival, outweigh the life of someone who is already established in society; who loves and is loved, who has
To the people who consider an embryo a human life, the difference between embryo and baby is only in the amount of effort required to keep the child alive. Both will be guaranteed to perish without intervention. Both might live full happy live
Re:Morality? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people seem to consider that all human life is equally valuable, no matter their station in life. You know, the whole "all men are created equal" thing. The real question is whether or not embryonic humans are really humans.
Re:Morality? (Score:2, Insightful)
In cricket, if there is doubt about a decision regarding a wicket being taken, the batsman is given "The benefit of the doubt", ie: since the batsman (if out) is out for the innings, but the bowler gets to bowl again, if th
Re:Morality? (Score:5, Interesting)
My father was supposed to die many years ago. The doctors permormed miracles and brought him back from the edge of death. But he is not the man he used to be. He suffers from many disabilities as a result of his illness and the operation used to save him. He is continually miserable too. He is my father, when he finally dies I am going to be profoundly sad and it's going to change my life but I still think he should have died back then. I don't believe in god and I don't think he is going to heaven or hell. I just think it was a mistake to force him to live when his body had given out, just to resurrect him as a crippled and sad old man. I hate seeing him this way and I have made sure I have a living will so that I will never be in his position either.
Re:Morality? (Score:2)
Re:Morality? (Score:2)
We do it all the time.
In this country (USA), where we have huge amounts of wealth, resources and expertise, we continue to place people in power who support the idea that first rate medical care is something only the rich can afford. The rest of the people get whatever can be cobbled together by so-calle
Re:Morality? (Score:5, Interesting)
What you've done is base your reasoning on an emotional plea rather than a logical framework. It is a tragedy when someone so firmly entrenched in the human community passes from us---of that there can be no debate, and that depth of tragedy does not exist in cases of abortion, IVF, and other examples of the destruction of human embryos. We will all miss the guy with the family more than the embryo we never knew.
But that was never the claim of those with a religious objection to the act. Religious and moral objections center around the question of the Rights of Man and at what stage in life those rights are accorded to us (Embryonic? Fetal? Infant? Puberty? Adulthood? etc...). The religious arguement is that those rights are accorded to each individual as soon as that individual comes into being. In short, "God bless everyone...no exceptions". Others argue that those rights are prematurely granted and shouldn't be accorded until birth. The law takes a graduated approach, saying that rights are accorded piecemeal as we move through the stages of life, and the most basic of rights (the Right to Life) is granted (conditionally) sometime around the third trimester of pregnancy.
Nowhere in the discussion do the religious folk claim that the people who would be saved don't deserve to be saved, just that the price is too high.
That argument in an (WAY) oversimplified nutshell: You and four others are in a hot air balloon and the balloon begiuns to sink into a volcano (too much weight!). Some quick calulations reveal that if just one of you jumped overboard the rest would survive. Do you toss someone overboard? If so, how do you determine who? Destruction of the embryo to save other lives is akin, in this argument, to saying that you determine the person to toss overboard by evaluating their life and determining which one has the fewest friends and family who will miss them, or alternatively by which is least capable of fending off the forced toss.
There are, of course, arguements on boths sides and such implausible scenarios can always be gamed in logical debates like this, so don't carry it too far. I'm not trying to get into a tit-for-tat over the specifics of the fantasy example, but rather just trying to show you the gist of the argument.
Many people would vehemently disagree with you. There are quite few "clear cut" moral decisions in life. If there were, we wouldn't need to argue so much about them.
Disclaimer: I am against the destruction of embryos in this context for religious and moral reasons. I am not approaching this from an unbiased perspective (like anyone does!). Your mileage may vary. Do not stare at happy fun ball, etc....
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
Re:Morality? (Score:3, Insightful)
The embryo's life doesn't outweigh the adult's; it is worth the same. Your question is much like asking why the life of a homeless man--with no family, or home or even guarantee of survival (they freeze to death all the time)--outweighs mine, for I'm establish
Never, never, and never (Score:3, Insightful)
Feh. Whole topic is flamebait (Score:2)
does an embryo have a soul? (Score:2)
Re:does an embryo have a soul? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then identical twins only have half a soul each.
Re:does an embryo have a soul? (Score:2)
Aristotelean categories took Christian theology down a path of academic masturbation, and now we're left with the fallout: people who actually believe it's significant to ask questions like "Do clones have souls?", and the whole transubstantiation mess.
The world would be much better off if Christendom hadn't embraced Helenism so wholeheartedly as a reaction to their institutionalized anti-Semitism. The Jews have a much more balanc
Philosophical descisions are thoguh to answer... (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone ever think that some (certainly
Re:Philosophical descisions are thoguh to answer.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Did it occur to you that the benifit of releasing new drugs more rapidly out weights the risks? Take for example anti-HIV/AIDS medication. If we tested it for two generations not even the most primitive types would be available and there whould be a lot fewer people still living with HIV/AIDS. As another example consider new antibiotics -
One person's view... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not religious. I don't believe that an embryo is a life. It's a collection of cells with the ability to become life if allowed to develop fully.
Please don't mod this as flamebait or troll. I'm not alone. This just happens to be my point of view and I believe that if cures and treatments may be found from such research I will support it wholly until the day I die.
It's been painful watching my Uncle deteriorate by the week. He's afflicted with ALS (Lou Gehrigs). I've attended the funeral of a six-year-old girl who died of leukemia. My uncle has lost his sight due to diabetes.
Those who oppose such research based on their religion, to me, are no better than those who deny life saving treatments to their children or themselves due to religious reasons. Religion makes people do things like this [dailytimes.com.pk].
Why is it so hard to imagine that your God gave man the ability to do such things as a means to improve our lives?
Re:One person's view... (Score:3, Interesting)
So when, in your opinion, does life begin? It's pretty obvious that birth is a poor milestone, since there's no real difference between a baby one minute before it's born and one minute afterwards. Viability's not good either, as it moves backward with medical progress: an unviable foetus thirty years ago may be perfectly viable now. What about the presence of certain major o
Re:One person's view... (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't understand the difficulty here. When do we determine life *ends*? When the brain no longer functions, correct? So why not use the exact same metric to determine when life begins?
Re:One person's view... (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree that viability is the point where technology can sustain a fetus (or embryo, but that would be quite a trick -- embryos have neither red blood cells or alveoli in their lungs). Viability is when
Re:One person's view... (Score:3, Insightful)
Non believers shouldn't argue how the faith of believers work
We have laws that dictate the minimal basics your life's actions should comply too, and for the rest its 'personal choice'.
So if non-believers think its ok to do such research, and its not against the law, then a believer shouldn't argue that its 'against gods will', because thats neith
is this new? (Score:3, Funny)
great news for lazy/overindulgent/unhealthy people (Score:2)
even better, I can ensure my new body/face is exceptionally good looking and thus I can be a film/rock star in my second "incarnation".
the only snag is I'm too lazy to earn the money to pay for it all, but with my new patent on "body
What is an embryo? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you say that this amount of cells are already a human being, than you have to monitor every female human, as natural failure after fertilization occurs every moment. Most women get pregnant and lose their "baby" in the first six weeks without even noticing.
Cloning human (tissue even) is certainly something one should discuss, but keep in mind that you put a very high value on one unborn human, while the same society doesn't have any problem in spending 100 times more on military (and using it) than others on medicine.
Furthermore all the implications this may have on society should be discussed; a longer life span, but less and less work for everybody (now a problem in europe and US, soon one in china and india), who will get the benefit, the one with money or everybody? In other words will we have rich 1000 year old and poor that won't reach the age of 80?
Certainly a lot to discuss, but you have to get some background knowledge, otherwise it is just "I have a strong feeling against it"...
Re:What is an embryo? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the point of this is ... ?
Just because lots of people die from cancer, myocardiac infarction and traffic accidents doesn't mean that intentionally killing people is allowed.
Im liberal, democrat, hippie and im against this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Im liberal, democrat, hippie and im against thi (Score:5, Informative)
I think we can be certain consciousness does not develop before the nervous system.
From the article they are harvesting cells after 5 days and the nervous system starts to develop after 17 day [ifisiol.unam.mx].
I assume that changes you mind about this, unless, of course, you think one can have consciousness without a nervous system.
Wait, huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wait, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
We either lose the genetic research race or we win it. Shutting the doors won't stop the research, it will just make we scientists do the research in other countries, which will then get the glory of the Nobel Prize.
It's time to pay attention to the reality of research -
I Propose a Solution to the Public Funding Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If you've always opposed this kind of research then you are not allowed to benefit from any of the treatments that may come about as a result of it. Let's see what these social conservatives have to say if it leads to cures or significant improvements in treating some of these horrible diseases somewhere down the line should they themselves become afflicted. Any nut job who takes things on "faith" (aka they believe absolutely in what they read in a book and/or in what they are told to believe in by others without any other outside supporting evidence) should not be allowed to make scientific and/or medical decisions for the rest of the country.
I don't hear many of these social conservatives bitching and moaning that their tax dollars are being used to fund the war in Iraq. Not a peep about their tax dollars being used to execute inmates. The whole "sanctity of life" principle as espoused by social conservatives is kind of selective thing, isn't it? How convenient
Re:Stem Cell Story == Troll. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stem Cell Story == Troll. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Even without bringing morality into the questio (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Even without bringing morality into the questio (Score:2)
They can certainly try to pass laws constraining us to their ethical code. And we can and should break those laws if the laws are wrong.
Re:Even without bringing morality into the questio (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Even without bringing morality into the questio (Score:2)
This is a major medical advancement and we need to elect people who are going to treat it as such.
Re:Even without bringing morality into the questio (Score:2)
Some drug maker? Some rich doctors who will only use treatment if the price is right? Some insurance company who will make a plan specificly for this type of coverage? And what would be different if government money had been used?
I don
Re:Even without bringing morality into the questio (Score:2)
Even before the patents expire, this knowledge will improve our understanding of 'how things work', even if we are not free to create inventions that use this knowledge for the first seventeen years.
Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:3, Informative)
And even if you think cloning humans is morally acceptable, the practice of killing the "superflous" embryos (note the language! Imagine you are suddenly considered "superfluous") that are created in the process by dumping them in the bin can be equated to murder (read: intentional killing of a human being).
Some researchers/clinics freeze them, but there is no guarantee that they are allowed to live (which violates t
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:4, Interesting)
KFG
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:4, Insightful)
The egg clearly has chicken DNA and therefore has to be considered to be part of the chicken species.
Therefore, it is easy to deduce that the egg came first. The first chicken hatched from a chicken egg, since the species of the egg is determined by the DNA of the creature that hatches from it, not by the species that laid the egg.
Simply put: If you have an egg, and a chicken hatches from it, then it was a chicken egg, regardless of whether it was laid by a frog, an alligator, or an ostrich.
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:3, Interesting)
If the definition of murder were that simple, then our President would already have been convicted for the murders of (pick your number, I'll settle for a round number near the middle) 100,000 Iraqis. No, murder is not a simple or natural definition. We as individuals and a society get to define murder. The majority of American individuals believe that abortion should be legal, and is not murder. Our courts have agreed. Our society
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:3, Insightful)
Alive is obviously not enough. Skin cells are alive. Plants are alive. Free will, or consciousness is the issue.
Can anyone say an embryo is conscious? They have a potential for consciousness, just like eggs and sperm have the potential for consciousness given the right conditions.
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:3, Funny)
I'll grant that your consciousness might be the issue, till you fall asleep. People in comas might object too, if they were conscious.
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I have trouble thinking of something that won't survive and grow without massive human intervention(a pregnancy is massive human intervention...) as being equal to a living, breathing person in deserving rights. I do not however, find it particularly offensive when other people disagree with
Re:Even without bringing morality into the questio (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Even without bringing morality into the questio (Score:2)
That depends on the spineless of the bootlickers in Congress.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should they have closed their eyes and ignored it because the atomic bomb was reprehensible?
The scientist who study stemcells are much in the same position, they are not in the decision chain when a woman gets an abortion. I don't think stem cell research are the driving force why women do get abortions. But they happen.
Should we close our eyes and pretend that the benefits doesn't exist? The future baby has already died. Don't let it die completely in vain.
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats an interesting point, and in a perfect world, I think you would be right. However if stem cells start getting associated with miracle cures, you can bet demand will outstrip supply, and the for-profit healthcare services in the US will be all over that like a cheap suit. Dollar value, sadly, is the almost inevitable result, illegal or not.
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
No one's ever going to make a career out of getting abortions for science. However, if you really believe life begins at conception, then you should be fighting against fertility treatments.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
So we can breed cattle to kill them, but cloning them directly would be wrong?
You are making young humans simply to strip-mine them for their desired cells and parts.
Not young humans, potential humans. These things aren't humans yet and, since lab created embryos
are generally not even viable (wouldn't survive to full term), these things aren't even really
potential humans.
But assuming that these things could eventually become humans, is having the potential to be
human sufficient to grant them the same rights and protections that humans get?
Do they suffer? No.
Do they even feel? No.
Is this any different from cloning liver tissue in a lab? No.
Remind me again what the arguments against this are. I can't seem to come up with any.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
I miscarried at 6 weeks. The tissue and blood that came out of me was not a baby. I did not cry.
Women who cry over a miscarriage a few weeks in would cry just as much if they had gotten their periods a few weeks prior. That is to say, they are crying because they wanted to be pregnant now, and they're not. What comes out looks nothing like a baby, and could never be confused for one.
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
I won't dispute the extreme example, because I understa
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:3)
I don't think that punishment of carrying a baby to term fits the crime of breaking a condom, but life can be even more unforgiving. Also I don't think that being born into this world makes a child better off if it is resented and thought of as a punishment. There are far worse fates than not being born. Like being beaten
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
It is certainly unfair
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words: What about the children?!? (blatant appeal to emotion)
Yep, killing someone just because he causes you some inconvenience is illegal.
No, It's not. It depends on the level of inconvenience. You can kill someone if they are about to chop a limb off, or rape you, or if they are about to do the same to someone else. If they are about to kill someone else (which doesn't really inconvenience you at all) you can still kill them.
It's called "justifiable homicide" and it happens pretty damn often.
Babies are either people or their not, you seem to want them to be elevated to have more rights than the humans that can support life on their own. One can infer from this that you believe in some type of higher moral purpose to protect the infant above the rights of the individual that will be forced to act like a life support system for it for nine months.
So what church did you say you went to again?
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Interesting)
So you think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all about saving innocent Japanese and US military lives? Maybe you should do a little research into it. There was no one reason for using the bomb. Yes, they wanted to avoid a costly (in lives and money) D-day style invasion on the Japanese home islands. They also wanted to show off their new weapon to the Russians. They also wanted to know what effect these new weapons would have on a populated city. This is why they chose Hiroshima, it was never bombed befor
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2)
I don't know if you mean just in general or if a single person can turn down doing so.
But I can think of plenty of reasons why people may choose not to do so - personal and religious belief for one (for instance, the ancient egyptians believed you had to have almost your organs, preserved in jars, to live an afterlife). I won't blame those people
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Morals are relative.
What is moral for a taleban is not necessarily moral for the rest of the world and vice versa.
For example, some people consider forcing religious beliefs on children immoral. People should be left to chose what they believe in once they are capable of choosing it.
Similarly, some people do not see anything immoral in harvesting stem cells from an entity without a functioning brain. It is the capability to think, rationalise and be aware of its surrounding
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2)
It is easy to seperate life form death and rationalize what is a human life. Sometimes when poked, it becomes blurry though.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2)
Yes, for the same reason that it would be cannibalism to eat a human finger that had been cut off in an accident. It doesn't matter that the finger can't think. It doesn't matter that *you* didn't cut it off. What matters in determining cannibalism is whether the tissue is of the same species as the eater. Did your question have a point?
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I for one am not putting my hand in your ass to diagnose if you have prostate cancer!
So that's one area.
Any more?
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
A valid question, but where to draw the line?
A lot of the science about twins known and used today was performed by none other than Dr. Mengele. Should we refrain from using that knowledge - because it most likely was obtained in horrific ways - to honor his victims or should we use that knowledge as best we can to honor his victims and ensure they didn't suffer in vain?
Morality is hard..
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Morality is only hard if you think about it, and try to find a basis for it in reality. If you inherit your morality from Bronze Age shepherds and don't think about it, it's easy.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:whats wrong with (Score:2)
It can cause you a lot of significant medical problems:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_122
http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/heart/sickle
Re:Hm.... (Score:2, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4563607.stm [bbc.co.uk] & http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6272 [newscientist.com]
So, I'm guessing it's not banned in the UK - under certain conditions at least.
--
silas
Re:Sad day for Harvard (Score:5, Insightful)
See, not all so-call fundamentalists live there
The ones with any juice live there. Tell me where you live and I'll drive you out of that, so.
the Puritans didn't leave England because they wanted to dodge the age of Enlightenemnt
Aha yes, well you are making the mistaken assumption that I was talking about the classical age of Enlightnment. I was rather referring to the point in time when significant powers in Europe started giving demented cults of personality the final heave-ho. You know, became enlightened.
I assume that by fundie, you mean somebody who dares say that the Bible is right, how silly of him?
So lets see here, you are saying that this book which contains a variety of often self contradicting stands on various issues, this book can be either "right" or "wrong"? Jaysus. As an historical document, its fairly entertaining. As a guide to how life is to be lived, you could do worse than certain passages. As an ironclad method to decide your every action, you are off your head, and a menace to yourself and society. Hence the crusade.
Do you really believe that it's a sign of freedom for a woman to dress in outfits that don't leave much to the imagination.
I know its a sign of slavery to forbid it, bub. And what the hell is wrong with you, you don't want to see a womans nipples? You think god gave her those as a mark of shame? Demned sodomites. CRUSADE!
And, just so you know it, I'm as opposed to revealing clothing for men as I am for women, so it's absolutely not a case of double-standards.
So you're an equal opportunities idiot. Splendid.
Very often, I hear people rant about how fundies are bad, how you can be a good christian and believe in everything liberal theology teaches.
I am not any kind of christian. I am however a very spiritual person, who lives by what I consider good morals and rules of behaviour. the only time I try to inflict those rules on others is when I meet dullard bible-junkies that honestly need a good infliction or two.
aybe you have faith in both orthodox christianity and subscribe to the widespread belief that the Bible is mostly myth, but that would simply mean that you faith would be baseless (which is stupid)
What the fuck is that? Russian orthodox or Greek orthodox? Or some peculiar vision of "straight" christianity? What a tiny little narrow world you live in, to be sure. I myself am a fan of Diderot; mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Re:Sad day for Harvard (Score:3)
I just gave up 3 mod points on this discussion to answer YES!
All the major religions teach tolerance, yet many ardent followers preach the opposite, sexual mores and drugs are two of the most powerfull "wedge" issues that can be used to divide a modern western population. The Queen, the pope, the president and the peasant all scratch their arse with one hand. Apart from no
Re:but when (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, cloning Lindsay Lohan for you a couple of times would just leave you with a couple of babies named Lindsay.
Unless science found a way to rapidly age them, but then you'd have a couple of adult women who aren't toilet trained and cry all the time. Now there's a fantasy!
Re:Have geeks even considered... (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, the slaves, wives and stoning things do have a certain attraction. :)