BREAKTHROUGH: First HIV-Positive Man Cured

Didn't Iran say they found a cure to AIDS a few years ago?

Not that a cure wouldn't be welcome no matter where it came from, but what're the odds there are better scientists in Iran, High Gravity?

I doubt they do have better scientists but I remember Ahmadinnerjacket running his mouth off about how they have a cure for AIDS, I suspect its bullshit though.
 
O c'mon, Zoom-boing. We transplant the organs of the dead; it isn't the "formerly human" character of stem cells that upsets you.

And the donors sign a card saying 'yes, use my organs for the living'. An aborted human never gets asked if they want to die to do this. 'Formerly human'?? :confused: From the moment of conception, what is growing inside a woman's uterus is human life. Zygote to 100 years old born. . . . all stages of human life, one no more or less 'human' than another.



I have no idea, do you?

If not, I fail to see why preventing science from saving lives is the higher moral attitude to be taking. How is more "respectful" to throw away potentially life-saving matter?

Sad that that's how you see a human being that has be ripped from the womb.
Zoom, the ES cell lines approved for research during the funding ban were from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization. As long as the parents/'owners' of those embryos approved of their disposal and/or use in research along with comprehensive consent, they became part of the approved line.

So leftover embryos -- leftover humans -- were allowed to be destroyed for research? :eek: This world is insane. <sigh> I suppose it wouldn't surprise anyone if I said I don't believe in in-vitro either, this being one of the reasons why.

I think you and the blue whackjob are talking about fetal stem cells, which are not the same thing as ES cells. They are far more differentiated.

I think you're right.
 
O c'mon, Zoom-boing. We transplant the organs of the dead; it isn't the "formerly human" character of stem cells that upsets you.

And the donors sign a card saying 'yes, use my organs for the living'. An aborted human never gets asked if they want to die to do this. 'Formerly human'?? :confused: From the moment of conception, what is growing inside a woman's uterus is human life. Zygote to 100 years old born. . . . all stages of human life, one no more or less 'human' than another.



I have no idea, do you?

If not, I fail to see why preventing science from saving lives is the higher moral attitude to be taking. How is more "respectful" to throw away potentially life-saving matter?

Sad that that's how you see a human being that has be ripped from the womb.

Are we gonna debate abortion rights again? I'm game, but to what end? Ever known anyone to alter their POV?

Back it up. Tissue removed from a human organism is not itself human. A corpse is not human. The product of an abortion is not human. These are remains, waste products or whatnot. If consent is the big deal, then why not oppose the transplanting of organs harvested from deceased children? How is the consent of their parents any different from the consent of the woman who has had an abortion?

Pardon me, Zoom-boing, but unless women are paid to abort, etc., so as to produce these stem cells -- which I think we can agree is unlikely -- the argument seems to me to be life saving science versus misplaced sentimentality. The abortion happened without regard to the stem cells, so why is discarding them the higher moral act?

1st bolded --- If you're talking about removing a fetus from the womb, that fetus is human. If you're talking about taking out my liver to have with faba beans, that liver is not human.

2nd bolded -- Of course what is removed during an abortion is a human, and a living one at that. If they weren't alive they wouldn't need to be aborted. A fetus isn't some cancerous growth (although I know there are those we believe just that).

No, I'm not getting into the whole abortion thing again because you're right, no one will ever change their mind.

I don't believe that leftover embryos should be used for research. I'm not a fan of in-vitro and this is one of the reasons why. They're not just blobs, they're humans in the earliest stages.

I also don't believe that aborted humans should be further desecrated and used as some science experiment, they should be buried as they are no longer living humans. I also think that using aborted humans for research will only further diminish abortion from what it is . . . the destruction of human life. Just my pov.
 
this country is so fucked up you people are actually agruing about people being cured of a horrible disease.

Divide and conquer.

The monied interests own your asses

I don't imagine Zoom-boing is unhappy that a cure for AIDS may have been found, TM. And I very much doubt there are people of any income level with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or other diseases afflicted their beloveds who do not support this research.

Money seems to me to have nothing to do with anything in this convo.

No, I'm not. Leave it to TM to completely twist things around.
 
Last edited:
For the slow and stupid..... The premise of the argument presented by the ops was that somehow the ban on embryonic stem cells in the States delayed or would have prevented this break through. The reality is no such stem cells were needed. That the US Government funded stem cell research during the ban on embryonic stem cells.

If we authorize their use we do in fact create a market for people to abort for the money from the stem cells. Keep the ban as they are not needed.
 
For the slow and stupid..... The premise of the argument presented by the ops was that somehow the ban on embryonic stem cells in the States delayed or would have prevented this break through. The reality is no such stem cells were needed. That the US Government funded stem cell research during the ban on embryonic stem cells.

If we authorize their use we do in fact create a market for people to abort for the money from the stem cells. Keep the ban as they are not needed.

I don't think you fully grasp the science either, RGS. But no matter.....
 
For the slow and stupid..... The premise of the argument presented by the ops was that somehow the ban on embryonic stem cells in the States delayed or would have prevented this break through. The reality is no such stem cells were needed. That the US Government funded stem cell research during the ban on embryonic stem cells.

If we authorize their use we do in fact create a market for people to abort for the money from the stem cells. Keep the ban as they are not needed.

I don't think you fully grasp the science either, RGS. But no matter.....

I UNDERSTAND this happened WITHOUT embryonic stem cells. I UNDERSTAND that lots of breakthroughs have occurred WITHOUT Embryonic Stem cells. I understand they can even trick other cells into thinking they are stem cells.

THERE IS NO NEED TO ENCOURAGE THE MURDER OF MORE CHILDREN FOR THIS.
 
Right wing definition of a "murdered child".

zygote.jpg


Isn't it amazing how right wingers want desparately to "get them born" and once they are born? Fuck 'em. Who cares? Starve the pests. If you feed them they'll "breed" (Andre Baur - GOP Leader).

Republicans block legislation to feed more children, improve school lunches | Markets | Market News | Canadian Business Online

Republicans block legislation to feed more children, improve school lunches

Well, are people having abortions just to produce stem cells, or not?

To even ask the question is sick.
 
this country is so fucked up you people are actually agruing about people being cured of a horrible disease.

Divide and conquer.

The monied interests own your asses

As horrible as it is to contemplate, I suspect there are many on the right who don't see this as a "good thing".

Just the fact that written into the Republican Platform in the State of Texas that gays should be criminals and gay marriage should be a "felony" proves that many, many right wingers want nothing good for gays.

In fact, many, in their normal ignorance, assume AIDS is a "gay" disease and feel if only they were all dead or gone, the world would be a "better" place. Of course, some might say that about the failed conservative philosophy that's brought the country to it's knees in the last 10 years.
 
For the slow and stupid..... The premise of the argument presented by the ops was that somehow the ban on embryonic stem cells in the States delayed or would have prevented this break through. The reality is no such stem cells were needed. That the US Government funded stem cell research during the ban on embryonic stem cells.

If we authorize their use we do in fact create a market for people to abort for the money from the stem cells. Keep the ban as they are not needed.

I don't think you fully grasp the science either, RGS. But no matter.....

I UNDERSTAND this happened WITHOUT embryonic stem cells. I UNDERSTAND that lots of breakthroughs have occurred WITHOUT Embryonic Stem cells. I understand they can even trick other cells into thinking they are stem cells.

THERE IS NO NEED TO ENCOURAGE THE MURDER OF MORE CHILDREN FOR THIS.

Who is encouraging the murder of children? Are you aware of such crimes, RGS? Then let's see a link.

Otherwise, this sounds like sentimental bullshit. You think some chick with an unwanted pregnancy is weighing the benefit stem cell research may bring mankind in her decision? Get a grip.
 
Right wing definition of a "murdered child".

zygote.jpg


Isn't it amazing how right wingers want desparately to "get them born" and once they are born? Fuck 'em. Who cares? Starve the pests. If you feed them they'll "breed" (Andre Baur - GOP Leader).

Republicans block legislation to feed more children, improve school lunches | Markets | Market News | Canadian Business Online

Republicans block legislation to feed more children, improve school lunches

Well, are people having abortions just to produce stem cells, or not?

To even ask the question is sick.

Why? How else would I get an answer?
 

Forum List

Back
Top