Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Originally posted by dilloduck
Then you should not have responded to my original question if you are unable to share your thoughts without PROOF. Or you could have said " I don't know until I get more facts"
Your entire dialog with me shows it.Nothing I have said even implies that I expect no consequences from actions
Actually, I HATE it. You just keep ASKING FOR IT.I know you like harrassing and insulting me. Hopefully I will get an answer to my original post from someone who is willing to help as opposed to harrass.
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
From umbilical cord source check the http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm#2. However, stem cells from umbilical cords is widely known and casual search will show that. The other is fairly new and I read it in a professional biotechnology magazine... i'll try to look it up.
Stem cells aren't the same as fetuses, they're just cells. I can't see why there would be an objection working on regular cells which is done all the time. I think a better question is where is the evidence that working on cells is wrong?
I think you might be confusing the source of the stem cells and stem cells themselves. Let me be clear: stem cells can be derived from fetuses as well as other sources, but they are not fetuses themselves.
well said, new guy!
Originally posted by NewGuy
With THIS evidence, aquiring cells would seem to be harmless if taken from the cord blood. I would see no issue with that.
I agree but let me throw this at you:
When you already have had a proven method of tissue regeneration that duplicates stem cell activity by causing the adult body to produce its own through electro-chemical stimulation, WHY DO THIS?
The answer is clear:
This keeps abortion in the political arena. IT keeps the debates going to throw around the political football.
Conservatives get elected and take a stand. Money trades hands from tax dollars. Laws get passed.
Liberals take office next time. Lobbying takes place. Deals get made with tax dollars. Laws get passed and government grows.
Then, just when you think you got it figured out, the roles of the conservatives and liberals SWAP.
This is exactly how all major political issues go. Money keeps getting drained from the people, government keeps growing, and all relevancy of the issue disappears.
In the long run, humans are then looked at as crops to help the existing populace survive and we forget the sancitity of human life.
Why should we care? We won't even have the power to stop it, the money to buy a different solution, the knowledge of science, nor the laws to change.
Welcome to mandated socialism.
Originally posted by dilloduck
Because research on stem cells may prove to be more effective than electro-stimulation. Are you against looking for ways to improve health care through research?
I don't think this is the only reason why abortion is debated and if it was totally abandoned,don't you think abortion would still be debated?
We already use humans to keep the existing populace alive. Are you against transplants?
I care because:
It is the pursuit of knowledge
It may help people WITHOUT hurting people
I already am powerless to stop many things. I do not see stem cell research doing anything to "mandate" socialism
Originally posted by NewGuy
"MAY BE". Depleted uranium "may be" better for ammo use because it penetrates armor. Does that mean we SHOULD use it?
Am I against looking for ways to improve health care through research?
Dude, I can point you to medical science clearly showing cures for 80% of what the AMA says is incurable, and point to ALL KINDS of wonderful things glossed over by the medical structure in the names of politics and "bettering society".
When we can efficiently use what we have, THEN I am for more research.
Only by parties trying to gain a political foothold over the nation through corruption. The Constitution would not allow such things, if followed, though. Since that doesn't happen since both parties want the same thing, you can consider your hypothetical irrelevant.
How is that even remotely the same as what I just posted?
You miss the entire point......AGAIN.
Blindness is no excuse to perpetuate the downfall of the rest of us.
Originally posted by NewGuy
"MAY BE". Depleted uranium "may be" better for ammo use because it penetrates armor. Does that mean we SHOULD use it?
Does it say we shouldnt do research on it?
Am I against looking for ways to improve health care through research?
Dude, I can point you to medical science clearly showing cures for 80% of what the AMA says is incurable, and point to ALL KINDS of wonderful things glossed over by the medical structure in the names of politics and "bettering society".
When we can efficiently use what we have, THEN I am for more research.
80% of what AMA says is incurable can be cured? You think someone did some research to find these cures?
Only by parties trying to gain a political foothold over the nation through corruption. The Constitution would not allow such things, if followed, though. Since that doesn't happen since both parties want the same thing, you can consider your hypothetical irrelevant.
How is that even remotely the same as what I just posted?
You miss the entire point......AGAIN.
Blindness is no excuse to perpetuate the downfall of the rest of us.
Originally posted by dilloduck
Your downfall will be your responsiblitly
Originally posted by dilloduck
"MAY BE". Depleted uranium "may be" better for ammo use because it penetrates armor. Does that mean we SHOULD use it?
Does it mean we should not research it?
Dude, I can point you to medical science clearly showing cures for 80% of what the AMA says is incurable, and point to ALL KINDS of wonderful things glossed over by the medical structure in the names of politics and "bettering society".
When we can efficiently use what we have, THEN I am for more research.
I bet someone did some research to come up with these other cures--ya think?
Originally posted by dilloduck
Never mind------I have managed to extrapolate your answer to my original post. Some people are against stem cell research because:
1 It's unnecessary---we already have the cures---we just dont use them.
2. We might have to debate the abortion issue again
3 It will lead to socialism
4 It's not nice to mess with mother nature.
5 Some people are to lazy to find out what stem cell research is all about anyway.
6 It will lead to political problems.
7 FEAR of the unknown
sorry I MADE you insult me like that but at least I know what sick people are up against
Originally posted by dilloduck
Thought that might be a tough one for ya ! *reminds self to not ask new guy questions*
still seems like stem cell research can't hurt
Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I'm not implying that nobody checked out the links I posted, but if people did, then maybe a lot of this discussion could have been cut short. I took these links from different sources with different view points and you will get very interesting information.
Links themselves do not provide facts or info. But the websites they take you to often time do.
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
A fetus is a living being. You're just a bunch of cells too, my friend. I'm beginning to question whether or not YOU have a soul, however.
