Surprised there hasn't been a thread about this topic yet. Anyway, what are your thoughts on embryonic stem cell research?For thsoe who don't know, embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, which is an early stage embryo - approximately 4 to 5 days old in humans (source:Wiki). Because of their ability to multiply and the overall health of these cells, they can be used to replace damaged cells for people who have diseases. Sounds great but there are two major issues1)Money. Embryonic stem cell research, at this point in time, is still a theory and has not been proven yet. It costs a lot of money to run tests, scans, etc. and labs across America are not commited to spending millions, possibly billions, of dollars to research something that may not even yield a positive result. Imagine wasting billions of dollars doing research only to find out that it was all a waste.2)Moral issues. Taking embryonic cells is basically murder, if you perceive to be that way. Yes, the embryo is techinally alive but it is not even in its early stages of development yet. For women who are raped, instead of having an abortion and murdering the baby and that being the end of it, they can use the stem cells to try and cure some "incurable" dieseases such as Parkinsons, etc. And please don't take to me about adoption as if it's the better alternative because many adoption cases involve adults who have been arrested numerous times and use it as a ploy to make it seem as if they're headed in the right direction in the eyes of the prosecutor.So debate away, do you agree or disagree with embryonic stem cell research?
I don't support stem cell resource.It's basically killing babies to find a cure and paying the government to do it.I'm glad George Bush got rid of it,that one good thing that he has done...This Bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.
First off, thousands of stem cells are destroyed each year as medical waste and tons more sit in freezers across this country that will never be used...and second this country wastes billions of dollars each year on mindless crap anyway. Why not put the money towards something that could turn out to be worth it.
So, I got this idea. Why doesn't a woman have five babies, and give all of them for stem cell research? That's called supply and demand, right? And the babies aren't human, after all, right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Jul 21 2006, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First off, thousands of stem cells are destroyed each year as medical waste and tons more sit in freezers across this country that will never be used...and second this country wastes billions of dollars each year on mindless crap anyway. Why not put the money towards something that could turn out to be worth it.</div>god damn, he stole my thoughts!!!!! i was just going to say the exact point that we spend tons of money on sh*t anyway, so spend it on this. people abort fetuses, so use them. decrease the surplus population lol
I'm for stem cell research, as long as it isn't killing babies. there are ways that scientist can get the needed cells without killing babies, such as ambilical cords and placentas. if they used those, than stem cell research should be legal.
if you're saying you're killing babies then you're retartedif we are gunna pussy out of doing this just because it's "killing babies"then lets stop masturbating or stop having sex with a condom on to bring all these babies to life!!!! notlookthe government is just against it because they will lose money off it..like all the things they remove because they arent cakingwould you rather "kill a baby" that was never really alive to be killed in the first place or cure diseases in people who are alive and well that need help?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>would you rather "kill a baby" that was never really alive</div>How is it not alive? Since when does a baby become alive? After the first month? Second? When it comes out of the womb?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hang Eleven @ Aug 14 2006, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is it not alive? Since when does a baby become alive? After the first month? Second? When it comes out of the womb?</div>How is it alive? a?live (-lv)adj.1. Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.2. In existence or operation; active3. Full of living or moving things; abounding4. Full of activity or animation; livelyhonestly none of these apply
Of course they do. A baby is moving when it's in the womb. Any mother can tell you that she's felt the baby kicking in her stomach. I could say more, but the point is, the baby is alive.Plus, how can you tell when it's alive? One month? Two? At birth? When?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Aug 15 2006, 02:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^ do you remember being in the womb? no</div>How does that relate to any of those definitions? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Aug 15 2006, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How does that relate to any of those definitions? Oh yeah, it doesn't.</div> It's okay Justice...if you don't want to talk about what happened in there. We totally understand.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>i guess people would rather save cells than human beings</div>Would you kill a 20-year old just so you could use his cells to do research? And would you do it without his/her consent? No. That baby is just as alive as any 20-year old, and you know it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Aug 15 2006, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's okay Justice...if you don't want to talk about what happened in there. We totally understand.</div>This is why you wear a donut when you have intercourse with a pregnant chick. So you don't poke the baby.I made this joke as tastefully as I could.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hang Eleven @ Aug 16 2006, 04:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Would you kill a 20-year old just so you could use his cells to do research? And would you do it without his/her consent? No. That baby is just as alive as any 20-year old, and you know it.</div>lol no..until you know somebody or have gone through it yourself (cancer maybe)...then see how quick you question what you just said..
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>until you know somebody or have gone through it yourself (cancer maybe)...then see how quick you question what you just said..</div>My grandpa and grandma on my dad's side both died of Alzheimers. My grandmother on the other side died of liver cancer. My grand-uncle is going to die of Lou Gehrig's disease.Satisfied? And even if I hadn't, you still haven't and can't justify abortion.
