The Price of Eggs:
Therapeutic Cloning and the Economics of Egg Donation

Cloning — By on November 29, 2005 at 1:42 am

Last week the South Korean stem cell pioneer Hwang Woo-Suk publicly apologized after an official investigation found two female scientists in his laboratory donated their own eggs for his research on cloning. Woo-Suk was not in violation of any legal or ethical guidelines in his own country but violated a international consensus against using eggs bought or donated from women who might be ‘



  • http://markbyron.typepad.com/ Mark Byron

    That’s a fairly effective approach for talking to folks who aren’t spooked by the methodology itself.
    The problem comes when the technology of coming up with the cells needs less eggs per try; then, the pro-cloning folks have an easier sell.

  • Nick

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    But what is the real cost of therapeutic cloning? Like Dr. Woo-Suk’s peers, most people would be surprised to find that the people advocating the unethical research aren

  • Nick

    This is a pretty good argument against therapeutic cloning right now, and if nothing changes, then it suggests that bioethics think tanks may be a waste of money and effort — the market will prevent widespread cloning no matter what happens.
    However, it occurs to me that the first draft of the human genome cost something like 150 million dollars and took 15 years. The technology has improved dramatically, and many genome scientists expect that in a few years, resequencing individual genomes will cost only a few thousand dollars and take a couple of weeks. If cloning technology improves in a similar fashion (cultured eggs? meiosis in a petri dish?), then ethical arguments will be more important than utilitarian ones, and bioethics think tanks will still have a raison d

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    BTW, today’s WSJ states that the annual spend on diabetes products is $7B. If you consider that only captures products (drugs, test strips, monitors etc.) and not doctor visits, operations, lost wages, etc. the annual spend on diabetes is probably closer to $14B-$20B per year.
    Using Joe’s numbers, being able to cure diabetes for $96-$288B looks pretty cost effective. Without using any sophisticated computations, the low end of Joe’s estimate would be recovered in less than half a decade and the high end in only 20 years. Less than the term of a typical mortgage.
    The moral remains if you can barely do ethical analysis well stay away from economic analysis!

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    Mark The problem comes when the technology of coming up with the cells needs less eggs per try; then, the pro-cloning folks have an easier sell.
    The example I used sort of jumped ahead to when cures were already available. Just to get to that point would require millions of eggs and would take years. Even with a one-to-one ratio, though, there will never be enough human donors. The only possible solution would be for them to be able to clone embryos without the need for eggs but that is almost too creepy to think about.
    Nick I’ve never actually heard anyone make this argument. Can you provide links?
    Admittedly, it is an extrapolation from polling data. A 2004 Harris Poll asked the question:

  • http://conblogeration.blogspot.com Pastor Jeff

    Joe,
    Thanks for the excellent post. I’m on the local board of a sister organization, the Center for Bioethics and Culture. I’ve linked to your post at my blog. I think the financial argument is helpful, but not primary.
    Those who are fixed on the particular numbers Joe has suggested are missing the larger point – this is only one disease that would require inordinate sums of money and a prohibitively large number of eggs to cure. Don’t forget to factor in human suffering and death among the female donors, as well as moral concerns about creating and destroying human life for research purposes.
    Embroynic stem cell research has cured nothing to date, while adult stem cells have provided successful treatment for dozens of diseases. Why the rush to pour billions into unproven and morally questionable science when the same resources could be expanding the successes of adult stem cell research?
    And Boonton, Christians have until recently focused on fertilization as the beginning of life because there was no technology to create life otherwise. You conveniently miss the point – what we’re talking about is human life. That’s why people in favor of stem cell cloning support “Clone and Kill” bills requiring that the life created be destroyed – because if left alone, that embryonic life will grow to become a mature human being.

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    While sperm and egg are the most common way of creating human life, it is not the only way. No one claims that the embryo that is created by cloning isn

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    And Boonton, Christians have until recently focused on fertilization as the beginning of life because there was no technology to create life otherwise. You conveniently miss the point – what we’re talking about is human life. That’s why people in favor of stem cell cloning support “Clone and Kill” bills requiring that the life created be destroyed – because if left alone, that embryonic life will grow to become a mature human being.
    What we’re talking about is the habit of assuming the conclusion rather than making an argument. You’re telling me that putting a full set of human DNA into an unfertilized egg cell will create a new human being yet you’re not really telling me why. When this issue comes up with abortion one of the main arguments used is that fertilization creates a unique set of DNA different from the mother and father. Yet here that is not the case. So a major element of the argument is different here yet not only your but a person working for a ‘bioethical think tank’ is telling us to just gloss over the issue here and assume the conclusion.
    If you read the updates on the Presidents bioethical committee over on Slate.com you’d know that one of the ideas being tossed around is putting an incomplete set of DNA into eggs. This would be sufficient to induce the egg to divide a few times but not enough for it to grow into a full grown babie even in theory. Is this solving the ethical problem or purposefully creating humans with horrible deformaties that won’t even let them grow past 8 or so cells?

  • Nick

    Joe:
    Admittedly, it is an extrapolation from polling data.
    Interesting results. An alternative explanation might be that the stem cell polling data accurately reflects the view of “pro-life” Christians on the nature of early embryos, while their stance on abortion is also influenced by disapproval of the perceived immorality of women who have unwanted pregancies.
    Or perhaps, the polling data reflects honest confusion rather than utilitarianism. Perhaps people really are unsure whether a blastocyst is a human being.

  • http://www.vocatum.blogspot.com MM

    Interesting. But short sighted. Arguments like these may be compelling, but they will never provide the healing which our poor culture and the persons within it really need; here, we need to refer to a comprehensive statement on the dignity of the human person in light of a Christian anthropology. This is where we Evangelicals need to be referring to RC bishop’s statements, and be grateful for them.
    God calls to the human person from conception to natural death; therefore, the human person has an inviolable right to life at each and every stage of his development…

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    It’s sad that at the core the problem is an inability for the two sides to try to understand each other. I think, though, that this failure is exhibited more on the ‘pro-life side’ than the research one.
    Isn’t it interesting how medical research devoted to finding cures and treatments to life destroying diseases are casually lumped into the moniker of ‘the culture of death’…as if scientists want to engage in this research just as some type of exotic hobby.
    Strictly speaking a ‘right to life’ can mean nothing more than a right not to be killed by the government without due process. Traditionally the government can only guarantee not to infringe upon your rights, it can’t guarantee you a ‘right to food’, a ‘right to a living wage’, a ‘right to a home’ etc. Of course as a society becomes wealthier a gov’t may be able to provide these things since it has the power to tax and spend but the ‘expanded rights’ cannot be as binding as fundamental rights.
    If you accept a place for ‘expanded rights’ then any sensible definition of a right to life also must carry with it a moral duty to try to find ways to cure or at least treat threats to life.
    Therefore if Joe & others are wrong and set the restrictions on this type of research too high they will be enacting an immoral policy because it will interfere with the moral duty to persue life saving research. Trying to pretend this isn’t a problem by a trumped up ‘proof’ that such research couldn’t produce an economically viable cure anyway is simply not sufficient.
    I see here a lot of people who want to pat themselves on the back for having the ‘correct’ moral position but very little concern for morality. I see very little in terms of a serious attempt to ensure that it isn’t Joe’s policy that is really the immoral one.

  • http://conblogeration.blogspot.com Pastor Jeff

    You’re telling me that putting a full set of human DNA into an unfertilized egg cell will create a new human being yet you’re not really telling me why. When this issue comes up with abortion one of the main arguments used is that fertilization creates a unique set of DNA different from the mother and father. Yet here that is not the case…
    The argument against abortion and ESC research is not based on the mother and child having different DNA. In the case of abortion, that is evidence demosntrating that the fetus is not the “woman’s body.” I think most pro-lifers are concerned because of the intentional creation and destruction of human life. The process used in SCNT is exactly the same to create a living clone – the only difference is killing the embryonic life before it can develop.
    Isn’t it interesting how medical research devoted to finding cures and treatments to life destroying diseases are casually lumped into the moniker of ‘the culture of death’…
    Who’s said that here? Nice straw man.
    Strictly speaking a ‘right to life’ can mean nothing more than a right not to be killed by the government without due process…
    Fair enough. So you’re opposed to destroying embryonic human life, then?
    If you accept a place for ‘expanded rights’ then any sensible definition of a right to life also must carry with it a moral duty to try to find ways to cure or at least treat threats to life.
    Whoa. How did “right to life” become an ethical mandate to find cures? You accuse pro-lifers of setting too many restrictions on research and thus being uncaring. What cost are you willing to pay? If it’s a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone’s property and income to fund research? Why not make everyone become scientists?
    And if you’re going to defend ESC research on the basis of “right to life,” what about the human life you are destroying in your search for cures? Why not build off the multiple successes of adult stem cell research? Why funnel billions into unproven and morally questionble research? Or are you just an open-minded risk-taker? I’ll bet you’re less sanguine about the explantory power of intelligent design, which I hear has explained as much as ESC has cured.
    I see here a lot of people who want to pat themselves on the back for having the ‘correct’ moral position but very little concern for morality. I see very little in terms of a serious attempt to ensure that it isn’t Joe’s policy that is really the immoral one.
    I don’t see anyone patting themselves on the back except you, Boonton. Of course if you define “morality” as an absolute duty to find cures, I suppose you win. But traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result. Many people are concerned that creating and destroying human life falls into that category. Is it possible that you could give pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt that we don’t hold our positions out of some supposed moral superiority or out of callousness to human suffering, but because we care deeply about the most vulnerable members of the human species?
    It’s sad that at the core the problem is an inability for the two sides to try to understand each other. I think, though, that this failure is exhibited more on the ‘pro-life side’ than the research one.
    For someone who complains about others not wanting to understand the opposing views, you’re doing a pretty good job of it yourself. You might begin by not portraying yourself as the only person with compassion or ethics.

  • Larry Lord

    Medical cures for diseases achieved by science do not advance the spread of religious belief.
    Unexplained recoveries from disease, on the other hand, do advance the spread of religious belief.
    Like it or not, these incontrovertible facts leave their impression on these sorts of debates.

  • Larry Lord

    Pastor Jeff
    But traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result.
    Really? Huh. It doesn’t seem that way to me.
    Please try to remember that the discussion is about whether any activity that prevents a capable human cell from becoming a human being is “evil”.
    If cloning embryonic stem cells is not “evil,” then your Christian tradition is not relevant.
    What does the Bible say about cloning embryonic stem cells?
    If it’s a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone’s property and income to fund research?
    It’s really funny to hear self-identifying Christian types make these kind of arguments. Some folks really do live in a vacuum.
    Ever heard of the National Institute of Health, Pastor Jeff?
    Has the NIH accomplished anything worthwhile in your opinion, Pastor Jeff?
    Where does the NIH get its money, Pastor Jeff?
    The greatest irony is that Christian opinions on these issues might actually be given some credence if other prominent self-identifying Christians hadn’t proven themselves to be pathetic ungracious liars willing to kill innocent human beings by the thousands to achieve some ill-defined “good”.
    So much for the “right to life.”

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Whoa. How did “right to life” become an ethical mandate to find cures? You accuse pro-lifers of setting too many restrictions on research and thus being uncaring. What cost are you willing to pay? If it’s a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone’s property and income to fund research? Why not make everyone become scientists?
    1. A ‘right to life’ would imply a duty not to stand in the way of people finding cures. If, for example, I stand in the door of a pharmacy and refuse to let a diabetic fill her insulin prescription am I not violating her right to life (assuming this results in a life threatening situation before anyone can intervene)? Or are the only ways you can violate a right to life is by going to an abortion clinic or siding against Terri Schiavo’s parents?
    2. I didn’t say an ethical mandate to find cures but a moral duty to try to find them. As with all ‘expanded rights’ these have to be balanced against other rights plus the fact that we have limited resources. Nonetheless at a minimum it would require one to oppose the gov’t from preventing private research. I think I was very clear about the difference between fundamental rights which in theory can be unlimited and ‘expanded rights’ which by definition are limited by the resources of society.
    3. My position stands and I don’t think you’ve really articulated any real disagreement other than to try to distort my position or roll out strawmen. Setting the bar too high and forbidding research that could save lives can be just as immoral as setting the bar too low.
    I don’t see anyone patting themselves on the back except you, Boonton. Of course if you define “morality” as an absolute duty to find cures, I suppose you win. But traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result.
    That basically blows Joe’s post out of the water. A shoddy economic argument designed to appeal to the most base of people’s financial motives (think of what your taxes would be if we found a cure to diebetes that cost $15K per person!) isn’t, according to your statement, a way to try to get good results (which I assume you mean convincing people to support an ethical research policy). As for patting themselves on the back, most of the posts here have been the same thing over and over. ‘We define human life as this, no questions need be entertained’.
    The argument against abortion and ESC research is not based on the mother and child having different DNA. In the case of abortion, that is evidence demosntrating that the fetus is not the “woman’s body.” I think most pro-lifers are concerned because of the intentional creation and destruction of human life. The process used in SCNT is exactly the same to create a living clone – the only difference is killing the embryonic life before it can develop.
    1. Perhaps you’re new here, whenever abortion comes up the unique DNA argument is almost always trotted out as an argument for considering fertilization the moment that full human life begins. If that’s not a valid argument then can we dispense with it when abortion comes up or is it only a valid argument when it is useful to support an ideologically based position?
    2. Obviously here the unique DNA argument strongly implies that the clone is the woman’s body (or the body of the donar or both).
    3. That the ‘process’ is the same does not show that the result is the same. I’ve pointed out how proposed modifications to the process meant to satisfy pro-lifers (such as only inserting a portion of the donar’s DNA) leave very large gapping questions open.
    And if you’re going to defend ESC research on the basis of “right to life,” what about the human life you are destroying in your search for cures? Why not build off the multiple successes of adult stem cell research? Why funnel billions into unproven and morally questionble research? Or are you just an open-minded risk-taker? I’ll bet you’re less sanguine about the explantory power of intelligent design, which I hear has explained as much as ESC has cured.
    1. Again you assume your conclusion.
    2. You missed the part where I meantioned that ‘regressing’ human stem cells can bring them to a point where they will grow as an embryo. Simply turning to adult stem cells does not resolve the moral questions.
    3. Who ever said we shouldn’t build off the successes of adult stem cells? Who ever said we should funnel billions of tax dollars into this research? The question of how much (if any) funding this type of research should merit in comparision to all the other types of research out there is totally off topic. AS for private dollars I presume to let the market decide how much money to funnel into all the various types of R&D.
    4. Needless to say intelligent design is nonsense but I never said anything about the prospects of ESC to produce results. I only pointed out that Joe’s assumptions & estimates were nonsense.
    For someone who complains about others not wanting to understand the opposing views, you’re doing a pretty good job of it yourself. You might begin by not portraying yourself as the only person with compassion or ethics.
    I don’t recall writing that I was a person with compassion or ethics but I thank you for the compliment. While I don’t consider myself exceptionally lacking in compassion or ethics I’m not going to be so arrogant as to claim I’m exceptionally compassionate or ethical compared to everyone else. I think you’re doing a pretty good job at revealing the lack of communication and respect exhibited in too much of the discourse on this subject. Why the intense need to make this personal by trying to rank me in light of what you think my personal qualities of ethics and compassion are?

  • http://conblogeration.blogspot.com Pastor Jeff

    Larry,
    Your response is so convoluted, illogical and irrelevant one doesn’t know where to begin. All the same, kudos on your masterpiece of non sequiturs, straw men, ad hominems and reudctio ad absurdum.
    No, I’ve never heard of the NIH. What is it? All Christians are opposed to all medical research because it undermines faith and all we care about is saving souls and inculcating blind, unreasonable faith.
    I’m not sure who the pathetic, ungracious Christian liars are, willing to kill thousands of innocents in the name of of some “good,” but that’s an ironic comment in a thread about destroying human life in order to find cures for disease.

  • Larry Lord

    Pastor Jeff
    Way to go! You managed to avoid addressing any of the straightforward questions I posed to you.
    So it seems to be that the case that you’re not here for discussion, but merely to blow hot air and “pat yourself on the back.”
    What a surprise.
    I’m not sure who the pathetic, ungracious Christian liars are, willing to kill thousands of innocents in the name of of some “good,”
    Really? You have no idea who I might be referring to?
    that’s an ironic comment
    You got one thing right.
    If it’s a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone’s property and income to fund research?
    Wow, look, you’re strange statement is still up there in the comments even though you pretend to have never made it.
    Funny how that works, Pastor Jeff.
    Welcome to the real world where interested people ask hard questions and expect thoughtful answers.

  • Donald McConnell

    There is a sort of Christian think tank on bioethics already: The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in Bannockburn Illinois. Trinity International University also has educational programs in Bioethics at its Deerfield Illinois campus, and by extension at its California campus. The California campus also has a California bar accredited law school that offers many bioethics related electives. So there are Christians working up these issues.

  • http://conblogeration.blogspot.com Pastor Jeff

    Boonton,
    Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding your argument. You seemed to be saying that Christians are being immoral and unsupportive of “right to life” because we stand in the way of research. That portrays your position as the “moral” one and makes any mutual understanding or discussion difficult. And it seems that you were in fact patting yourself on the back for being more caring and understanding.
    Of course it’s possible to cause harm by setting the bar too high. Christians are hardly unaware of human suffering. Simply saying that we have a moral duty to find cures is inarguable, despite Larry’s sarcasm. Pro-lifers are unwilling to sacrifice unconsenting human life to help others. Size or level of development is not what makes us human.
    It seems that you were talking about some of the more recent developments such as ANT. If you are using only part of an embryo and not destroying it, that certainly makes it less problematic. If you’re intentionally modifying an embryo to make it non-viable, I think that raises other concerns. We are in very difficult territory here, and as you point out, the more science advances, the more complicated the issues become. I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
    So if you “regress” adult stem cells to the point of creating embryos which could develop into fully-formed human beings, at that point you’ve created human life which should not be intentionally destroyed for the sake of another.
    As far as DNA goes, that the mother and child have different DNA is significant supporting evidence that the embryo is not the mother’s body. That the SCNT embryo has the same DNA as the donor doesn’t make it the donor’s property any more than identical twins belong to each other. If the embryo develops into a fully-grown human, will you still maintain it is property?
    And we are talking about limited resources. Joe raised an economic argument which I think is a good secondary point. If we had unlimited time and money, we could do everything. I think it’s fair to raise the issue of successful, morally neutral adult stem cell research. People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date. And Joe raised valid economic and ethical concerns about the feasibility of expanding embryonic stem cell treatments even if we could get them to work.

  • http://conblogeration.blogspot.com Pastor Jeff

    Larry,
    I would answer your “straightforward” questions if I could figure out what they were or find them in the midst of all the bitter invective and sarcasm. Which questions were straightforward? The ones about the NIH? I answered those as they deserved. The one about the Bible? I don’t remember mentioning the Bible. Why are you bringing it up? Do you trust it as a source of wisdom or for its moral authority? Would you give biblical arguments any serious consideration?
    How exactly have I pretended not to have made a comment? Boonton argued that we have a moral duty to find cures. A moral duty implies that not doing all in our power to fulfill our duty is immoral. Saying “moral duty” allows Boonton to sound caring and moral, while anyone who stands in the way or suggests limits is immoral. Or was Boonton’s point simply a throw-away line? The context clearly suggests that Christians aren’t willing to do enough to find cures. I simply took his point to a silly extreme to demonstrate that there are always limits, and setting limits is not uncaring or immoral. The disagreement is over what the limits should be. What’s your point?

  • Larry Lord

    Pastor Jeff
    I simply took his point to a silly extreme
    Yeah, you sure did. It’s amusing that you seem to think only you are allowed to do so. When others do the same, you attack their “bitter invective and sarcasm.”
    Let’s be clear: I’m not bitter. I am sarcastic. But so what?
    I don’t remember mentioning the Bible. Why are you bringing it up?
    Um, perhaps you’ve forgotten already your wishful-thinking that:
    traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result.
    Pardon me for linking Christianity and Bible!!!
    I thought that was a reasonable connection to make, Pastor Jeff.
    If the Bible doesn’t tell you what is “evil,” then how do you know what is evil and what is not, Pastor Jeff?
    If the Bible does tell you what is evil, then my question about the Bible’s position on embryonic stem cells is very relevant.
    Perhaps you attack me because you do not know the answer to my question, or perhaps you do know the answer but the answer displeases you.
    People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date.
    Or, you might say that “people are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on scientific research which has led to cures and treatments of untold number of human diseases and disorders in the past century.”
    Right, Pastor Jeff? You could say that and I would take you seriously because you and I both know that the National Institute of Health and the grants it provides to scientists in this country have saved or improved the lives of millions of men, women, children and — yes — unborn children in this country.
    It’s called “honesty” Pastor Jeff. It’s called facing reality. It’s called acknowledging indisputed facts.
    At the end of the day, such facts are all that matters. Whether the deity worshipped by “Christians” will be angered by embryonic stem cell cloning is not particularly relevant to rational debates on the subject.
    I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
    There are no “embryonic clusters” that develop into fully-formed humans if “left to themselves.”
    Never were. Never will be.
    But go ahead and re-define the phrase “left to themselves.”
    You won’t be the first one to engage in that sort of sophistry.

  • Larry Lord

    And we are talking about limited resources. Joe raised an economic argument which I think is a good secondary point.
    How much money are we spending every day to kill people in Iraq?

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding your argument. You seemed to be saying that Christians are being immoral and unsupportive of “right to life” because we stand in the way of research. That portrays your position as the “moral” one and makes any mutual understanding or discussion difficult. And it seems that you were in fact patting yourself on the back for being more caring and understanding.
    I’m not sure why this is so difficult. I’m saying that standing in the way of research without a good reason to is immoral. I think on this we both agree. My point is that what gets lost here is that only one side of the moral question is receiving attention; what types of research are immoral. You can’t adopt a cover your ass type position by just drawing the line far to the side restricting research.
    It seems that you were talking about some of the more recent developments such as ANT. If you are using only part of an embryo and not destroying it, that certainly makes it less problematic. If you’re intentionally modifying an embryo to make it non-viable, I think that raises other concerns. We are in very difficult territory here, and as you point out, the more science advances, the more complicated the issues become. I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
    What seems to be happening here is that any cell in either an embryo or (with great help) in the human body can create a full blown human beign if ‘left to itself’. In this context I’m not sure what left to itself really means since any attempt to ‘salvage’ a cloned embryo and bring it to full term would require a lot of technological help.
    As far as DNA goes, that the mother and child have different DNA is significant supporting evidence that the embryo is not the mother’s body. That the SCNT embryo has the same DNA as the donor doesn’t make it the donor’s property any more than identical twins belong to each other. If the embryo develops into a fully-grown human, will you still maintain it is property?
    The irony is that it is literally the donar’s DNA. Not a copy of it but the exact DNA that not a second before it was plucked from the donar fully belonged to the donar. It’s as if you took a CD out of my CD player, put it in yours and declared it not longer my property!
    And we are talking about limited resources. Joe raised an economic argument which I think is a good secondary point. If we had unlimited time and money, we could do everything. I think it’s fair to raise the issue of successful, morally neutral adult stem cell research. People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date.
    True but this is a different topic. Even if we could somehow agree that stem cell research was 100% ethical that doesn’t mean the checkbook pops open and we start writing. There’s lots of ethical research competiting for funding and it would have to justify itself against those. Unfortunately, that debate I suspect is beyond both of our levels of scientific knowledge to really conduct here.

  • Ivan

    Just when the conversation gets interesting the asshole Larry pops up and derails the whole thing with his disjointed rants. Its bloody tiresome to scan past his crap everytime. Isn’t there some filter the host can attach to save us the trouble?

  • Larry Lord

    Ivan
    Just when the conversation gets interesting the asshole Larry pops up and derails the whole thing with his disjointed rants.
    I didn’t derail anything.
    Fyi, please see the Christian Critique of Swearing Thread immediately below this one.

  • http://www.movieworld.com.au/ Ethan Johnson

    It’s a very nice website you’re having here. when Round Expect Stake Hedge: http://www.macromedia.com/ , Astonishing Chair Loose or not when Chips Destroy Circle Anticipate , Beautiful Mistery Destroy or not Good, Industrious, Greedy nothing comparative to Bad