It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So addressing what's posted and pointing out the flaws is me "standing in the way of science"? I think you need to understand that finding the errors is a big part of what is done in science.
originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: TerryDon79
You've nothing to add but instead standing in the way of science... much the same way many have done countless times before.
I already did. The idea of the study in the op was good (read my second reply on page 1). The idea of women not needing spermless is based on a study on mice, not human females. It's got nothing to do with morality and everything to do with what's been presented.
If you have an opposing view how about stating it instead of making baseless excuses... the reasoning you don't is because it will be a moral view and belief based which does not echo reality.
All I've done is address the data (after my initial joke). You keep saying it CAN work (the spermless egg) doesn't mean it will. It MIGHT work in humans.
Of course taking that sort of view is not reality based so attack the data... this can work in humans ok?
Why is it moot? Isn't that EXACTLY the point? You go after the science and research if you find a problem with it? That's all I've done. Again, no morality has been brought into it.
So attacking the science or research is moot why not be straight up and say what you really feel that it is morally or ethical objectionable and state the reasons why you think so and discussion of that can actually take place...
Really?! What did you want? An echo chamber? I never once said ANYTHING about morals or ethics, you did.
This obfuscation of cracking jokes and attacking the science in order to derail discussion adds nothing that really needs to be discussed because they are already WELL known of course by that same token the morality or ethical reasons for carrying out such has likely been covered by similar things.
Thats incorrect. Men are not physically able to carry a child. We don't have the internals to do so. Your article doesn't say anything of the kind either. That's just you making stuff up.
But it is not moot to discuss them here... as it could mean women or men could have another option to have children when not able to do so barring adoption of so very many children displaced by war that many of those same moral ideologies create aside from those accidental in nature any belief aside as the cause.
Again with the morals and ethics. Show me where I used either of those words, outside of this post? You seem hung up on them.
I am sure there are other valid reasoning as some already given in the commentary of the very first post. Morality should never ever be allowed to stand in the way of science and progress... of course ethically in how we treat life itself should be taken and given full consideration.