Success with stem cells

[Cecilie1200]

I know.

It's incredible, isnt it?

I mean, to think someone really thinks this kind of 'defence via pretence of stupidity' just boggles the mind.

It boggles my mind that they seriously think reality and public policy should be determined by THEIR lack of education and information. A fetus should be adjudged as "not a person" merely because he does not look like what they think of as a person, aka an adult human being.

Agreed.

It's the same old prejudice of 'It's not familiar to me, nor what I can empathize with, so it must not be human.' And that's not much different than the thinking of every ideological thug and murderer from Kemal Attaturk, to Adolph Hitler, to Stalin and Mao to Pol Pot.

It is a dangerous thing to dehumanize other people because the same logic can undermine how others see you and your kind as well.

I am always extremely grateful that reality continues to be what it is and the universe continues to work the way it does irregardless of whether or not humanity comprehends it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It boggles my mind that they seriously think reality and public policy should be determined by THEIR lack of education and information. A fetus should be adjudged as "not a person" merely because he does not look like what they think of as a person, aka an adult human being.

Agreed.

It's the same old prejudice of 'It's not familiar to me, nor what I can empathize with, so it must not be human.' And that's not much different than the thinking of every ideological thug and murderer from Kemal Attaturk, to Adolph Hitler, to Stalin and Mao to Pol Pot.

It is a dangerous thing to dehumanize other people because the same logic can undermine how others see you and your kind as well.

tsk tsk Did you just compare liberals to Adolph Hitler?

Well, Hitler was a tree hugging, genetic determinist who wanted complete socialism, mind-numbed sheeple and loved various sexual perversions.

But I wasnt going into all that, just that various ideologues, left or right, have atendency to dehumanize various people. In the case of baby killers, I pretty much classify them close to the Nazis and the Cheka.

Don't you know that is politically incorrect and can get you demonized as a right wing troll for life, or at least your life here on the board?

Too late.

It is only permissible to compare right wingers to Hitler because when you compare a liberal to Hitler you are being intolerant. Comparing a right winger to Hitler is displaying liberal thinking and is perfectly acceptable.

Get with the picture, buddy.

Immie

I get the sarcasm, but your parody is too close to the Truth of the matter, and thus obscuring whether you truly intend to be farcical, or, like many libtards, you are just naturally farcical due to cognitive dissonance and ideological group-think.

But I will go out on a limb here, and guess, based on your sense of humor, that you are indeed being farcical....am I right?

 

[Montrovant]

Again with the "I was jacking off behind the gym during biology class". It's amazing - and not at all coincidental - how many liberals are ALSO uneducated and scientifically illterate.

Get a biology textbook, get someone to read it to you, and then have that person turn to the section where they explain the difference between "cells, tissues, organs, and organisms", you fucking retard.

Until then, you're done here, because you've just proven that you have less to say scientifically than my three-year-old does. (He knows as much as you do, but he's cuter.)

I know.

It's incredible, isnt it?

I mean, to think someone really thinks this kind of 'defence via pretence of stupidity' just boggles the mind.

It boggles my mind that they seriously think reality and public policy should be determined by THEIR lack of education and information. A fetus should be adjudged as "not a person" merely because he does not look like what they think of as a person, aka an adult human being.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the whole 'not a person' thing is a matter of the ability to think and is not about appearance. I would consider an adult human without cognitive brain function to be 'not a person' as well.

 

[Immanuel]

Agreed.

It's the same old prejudice of 'It's not familiar to me, nor what I can empathize with, so it must not be human.' And that's not much different than the thinking of every ideological thug and murderer from Kemal Attaturk, to Adolph Hitler, to Stalin and Mao to Pol Pot.

It is a dangerous thing to dehumanize other people because the same logic can undermine how others see you and your kind as well.

tsk tsk Did you just compare liberals to Adolph Hitler?

Well, Hitler was a tree hugging, genetic determinist who wanted complete socialism, mind-numbed sheeple and loved various sexual perversions.

But I wasnt going into all that, just that various ideologues, left or right, have atendency to dehumanize various people. In the case of baby killers, I pretty much classify them close to the Nazis and the Cheka.

Don't you know that is politically incorrect and can get you demonized as a right wing troll for life, or at least your life here on the board?

Too late.

It is only permissible to compare right wingers to Hitler because when you compare a liberal to Hitler you are being intolerant. Comparing a right winger to Hitler is displaying liberal thinking and is perfectly acceptable.

Get with the picture, buddy.

Immie

I get the sarcasm, but your parody is too close to the Truth of the matter, and thus obscuring whether you truly intend to be farcical, or, like many libtards, you are just naturally farcical due to cognitive dissonance and ideological group-think.

But I will go out on a limb here, and guess, based on your sense of humor, that you are indeed being farcical....am I right?

You are right and remember all good humor (and I don't consider mine to be good humor but I do try now and then) has to have a basis in reality to be funny.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know.

It's incredible, isnt it?

I mean, to think someone really thinks this kind of 'defence via pretence of stupidity' just boggles the mind.

It boggles my mind that they seriously think reality and public policy should be determined by THEIR lack of education and information. A fetus should be adjudged as "not a person" merely because he does not look like what they think of as a person, aka an adult human being.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the whole 'not a person' thing is a matter of the ability to think and is not about appearance. I would consider an adult human without cognitive brain function to be 'not a person' as well.

Why? When did we decide it was okay to start drawing lines in the sand and saying, "Personhood begins with THIS level of intellect"? Do we really want to set up such a subjective and arbitrary boundary? Are we really stupid enough not to realize how easy it is to adjust such a thing at will once it is accepted?

A living human being is a person. Period. I think many people who love those with severe retardation, Alzheimer's, brain damage, etc. would agree with me that our society does not need to start trying to bestow personhood and creating classes of disposable human non-persons.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I know.

It's incredible, isnt it?

I mean, to think someone really thinks this kind of 'defence via pretence of stupidity' just boggles the mind.

It boggles my mind that they seriously think reality and public policy should be determined by THEIR lack of education and information. A fetus should be adjudged as "not a person" merely because he does not look like what they think of as a person, aka an adult human being.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the whole 'not a person' thing is a matter of the ability to think and is not about appearance. I would consider an adult human without cognitive brain function to be 'not a person' as well.

You have moved the goal posts though, havent you? We were discussing whether the unborn child is a human being, not whether they are a person, an ambiguous term at best.

If it's the ability to think that solely makes us human, then one has to ask how well they must think to be human. An unborn child has a functioning brain so they do think at some level. So if an unborn child is not a person because they do not think quite well enough to meet your standards, where else might that line be drawn? Is a born baby a person? an adolescent? a young adult with mental disabilities? a person of the wrong race or ethnic group?

That is a very dangerous slippery slope you place the essence of humanity on.

What makes us a person is the presence of a soul. It has nothing to do with cognitive ability, only whether there is a functioning brain and the potential for independent life. This has been the definition for what makes us human for millenia, and the last century has amply shown us the dangers of abandoning that ancient standard for life, has it not?

But the simple and plain unspoken truth is that we live in a twisted society that has reduced the act of creating life to a form of entertainment. And since we crave more cars and appliances and a bigger house more than we do children, some kill some of their children in the womb in order to not have the financial setback that a baby represents in an urban society. Some kill their own because they are weak in confidence or body or faith, but the consequences are still the same.

We in effect devour our young, as the evil 'gods' did of the ancient world, and we are not going to escape the consequences. Already we must bring in more and more immigrants from alien cultures and the number of native born Americans dwindles more with each passing year.

It wont be too much longer when the Powers That Be will realize they dont have enough loyal hands to do their work, nor minds to solve their problems. But they will be too busy struggling for what scraps of diminishing power they can take for themselves to pay any mind to solving problems anyway.

We live on a rudderless ship with a helm that is covered in the dust of neglect.

That we have not recked is purely a matter of luck, but we cant stay 'lucky' for ever.

Though I hate the thought, one day our own Rhine will freeze over and the barbarians will cross the boundries we have imposed by wit and craft because our strength and devotion has long ago left us.

And then we will become re-aquainted with deprivation and suffering as our enemies take our place from us in this world.

But maybe God will be merciful and a remnant will be large enough and strong enough to restore some of what we once had some day.

Maybe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why? When did we decide it was okay to start drawing lines in the sand and saying, "Personhood begins with THIS level of intellect"? Do we really want to set up such a subjective and arbitrary boundary? Are we really stupid enough not to realize how easy it is to adjust such a thing at will once it is accepted?

A living human being is a person. Period. I think many people who love those with severe retardation, Alzheimer's, brain damage, etc. would agree with me that our society does not need to start trying to bestow personhood and creating classes of disposable human non-persons.

So true, and it just incredible that the Twentieth Centuries horror has not been sufficient to make all of us understand this simple Truth.

 

[Si modo]

03.07.03


The doctors did offer an alternative: Bonnville could become the first human to receive experimental stem-cell therapy to revive his damaged heart tissue. They went ahead with the procedure, the results of which could turn the stem-cell debate on its head.

Doctors at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan, used a procedure that, if successful, could eliminate some of the controversy surrounding the medical use of embryonic stem cells, as well as the practice of therapeutic cloning.

"We're very excited because we think that there's already been substantial recovery of cardiac function," said William O'Neill, Beaumont's chief of cardiology, regarding Bonnville's progress.

The teenager's therapy began Feb. 17 with a four-day regimen of a drug that stimulated the production of stem cells in his blood. On Feb. 21, doctors harvested Bonnville's stem cells. Using a heart catheter, they transplanted the stem cells into the artery that supplies blood to the front of the heart.

He was discharged about a week later and is now recuperating at home. His doctors say they have never seen a recovery like his.

Stem Cells Heal a Broken Heart

Ummm, those aren't embryonic stem cells.

 

[Si modo]

What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.

Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.


...


Scientists believe that tissues derived from embryonic and adult stem cells may differ in the likelihood of being rejected after transplantation. We don't yet know whether tissues derived from embryonic stem cells would cause transplant rejection, since the first phase 1 clinical trials testing the safety of cells derived from hESCS have only recently been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).



What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]

Sure, embryonic stem cells can be relatively easy to grow in culture. Preventing their differentiation is NOT easy.

So far, the potential for therapeutic uses of adult stem cells is far more evident than for embryonic.

 

[Si modo]

I am posting info in order to disseminate the facts and you are the one attempting to argue the inarguable...

The question was asking for proof of successful cures as a result of embryonic/fetal stem cells.
So far, you haven't provided that information or proof.
Try harder.

So you just wanted to post to yourself then...Pardon me for interrupting.

MM

He asked a clear question. You didn't like it so you answered a question you made up. You are arguing with yourself and he is not interested, as are most of us.

 

[Si modo]

In the case of whether research dollars should be spent on embryonic stem cells or adult (or even umbilical) stem cells whether human life is important or not only muddies up the discussion. The ONLY reason why embryonic stem cell research is continuing is because there is some tenuous support of abortion. Take that out of consideration and it isn't even close. All of the successes has come from use of adult stem cells. If abortion wasn't the be and end all, there wouldn't be any embryonic stem cell research going on. It would be too unprofitable.

[Emphasis added]

That's just hooie.

Embryonic stem cell research is continuing because (1) the expansion of knowledge in the sciences is not only important for humans as a collective, but for any nation's national security, and (2) they provide a therapeutic potential other stem cells cannot.

This has nothing to do with any "tenuous support of abortion", especially when embryonic stem cells can be cloned.

 

[Montrovant]

It boggles my mind that they seriously think reality and public policy should be determined by THEIR lack of education and information. A fetus should be adjudged as "not a person" merely because he does not look like what they think of as a person, aka an adult human being.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the whole 'not a person' thing is a matter of the ability to think and is not about appearance. I would consider an adult human without cognitive brain function to be 'not a person' as well.

Why? When did we decide it was okay to start drawing lines in the sand and saying, "Personhood begins with THIS level of intellect"? Do we really want to set up such a subjective and arbitrary boundary? Are we really stupid enough not to realize how easy it is to adjust such a thing at will once it is accepted?

A living human being is a person. Period. I think many people who love those with severe retardation, Alzheimer's, brain damage, etc. would agree with me that our society does not need to start trying to bestow personhood and creating classes of disposable human non-persons.

We basically already do just that in multiple situations. Obviously, most people consider animals less than people because of levels of intellect. Granted, the 'cuteness' of a particular animal can be a factor too, but if we were able to speak to any animal, I am confident people would raise it in their estimation of 'personhood'. Then there is the case of a human who does not have most brain function. Many consider a 'vegetable' to no longer be a person. There is the idea of brain death. There is the morality of 'pulling the plug'. Questions of personhood are already there, abortion is just another situation to ask the question.

You are free to consider a newly fertilized egg a person, the same as any other. I cannot.

 

[Montrovant]

It boggles my mind that they seriously think reality and public policy should be determined by THEIR lack of education and information. A fetus should be adjudged as "not a person" merely because he does not look like what they think of as a person, aka an adult human being.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the whole 'not a person' thing is a matter of the ability to think and is not about appearance. I would consider an adult human without cognitive brain function to be 'not a person' as well.

You have moved the goal posts though, havent you? We were discussing whether the unborn child is a human being, not whether they are a person, an ambiguous term at best.

If it's the ability to think that solely makes us human, then one has to ask how well they must think to be human. An unborn child has a functioning brain so they do think at some level. So if an unborn child is not a person because they do not think quite well enough to meet your standards, where else might that line be drawn? Is a born baby a person? an adolescent? a young adult with mental disabilities? a person of the wrong race or ethnic group?

That is a very dangerous slippery slope you place the essence of humanity on.

What makes us a person is the presence of a soul. It has nothing to do with cognitive ability, only whether there is a functioning brain and the potential for independent life. This has been the definition for what makes us human for millenia, and the last century has amply shown us the dangers of abandoning that ancient standard for life, has it not?

But the simple and plain unspoken truth is that we live in a twisted society that has reduced the act of creating life to a form of entertainment. And since we crave more cars and appliances and a bigger house more than we do children, some kill some of their children in the womb in order to not have the financial setback that a baby represents in an urban society. Some kill their own because they are weak in confidence or body or faith, but the consequences are still the same.

We in effect devour our young, as the evil 'gods' did of the ancient world, and we are not going to escape the consequences. Already we must bring in more and more immigrants from alien cultures and the number of native born Americans dwindles more with each passing year.

It wont be too much longer when the Powers That Be will realize they dont have enough loyal hands to do their work, nor minds to solve their problems. But they will be too busy struggling for what scraps of diminishing power they can take for themselves to pay any mind to solving problems anyway.

We live on a rudderless ship with a helm that is covered in the dust of neglect.

That we have not recked is purely a matter of luck, but we cant stay 'lucky' for ever.

Though I hate the thought, one day our own Rhine will freeze over and the barbarians will cross the boundries we have imposed by wit and craft because our strength and devotion has long ago left us.

And then we will become re-aquainted with deprivation and suffering as our enemies take our place from us in this world.

But maybe God will be merciful and a remnant will be large enough and strong enough to restore some of what we once had some day.

Maybe.

I didn't move any goalposts. I wasn't discussing whether a fetus is a human being rather than a person. My first comment here was in response to Cecilie's post, in which she mentioned the idea of being a person and connected it to appearance.

Also, since I do not believe in a soul, I cannot believe that the presence of a soul is what determines whether something is a person or not.

And wow, that's quite a rant to go on based on my post which you didn't even really pay attention to based on your moving goalposts comment!

 

[Katzndogz]

In the case of whether research dollars should be spent on embryonic stem cells or adult (or even umbilical) stem cells whether human life is important or not only muddies up the discussion. The ONLY reason why embryonic stem cell research is continuing is because there is some tenuous support of abortion. Take that out of consideration and it isn't even close. All of the successes has come from use of adult stem cells. If abortion wasn't the be and end all, there wouldn't be any embryonic stem cell research going on. It would be too unprofitable.

[Emphasis added]

That's just hooie.

Embryonic stem cell research is continuing because (1) the expansion of knowledge in the sciences is not only important for humans as a collective, but for any nation's national security, and (2) they provide a therapeutic potential other stem cells cannot.

This has nothing to do with any "tenuous support of abortion", especially when embryonic stem cells can be cloned.

There is no support of embryonic stem cell research without bringing in the right to abortion. What is a person? All the arguments to support abortion. Embryonic stem cell research is flatly unproductive and unprofitable. Mostly because it (like most democrat policies) has not evolved, but been imposed, mostly to lend support for abortion.

 

[Si modo]

In the case of whether research dollars should be spent on embryonic stem cells or adult (or even umbilical) stem cells whether human life is important or not only muddies up the discussion. The ONLY reason why embryonic stem cell research is continuing is because there is some tenuous support of abortion. Take that out of consideration and it isn't even close. All of the successes has come from use of adult stem cells. If abortion wasn't the be and end all, there wouldn't be any embryonic stem cell research going on. It would be too unprofitable.

[Emphasis added]

That's just hooie.

Embryonic stem cell research is continuing because (1) the expansion of knowledge in the sciences is not only important for humans as a collective, but for any nation's national security, and (2) they provide a therapeutic potential other stem cells cannot.

This has nothing to do with any "tenuous support of abortion", especially when embryonic stem cells can be cloned.

There is no support of embryonic stem cell research without bringing in the right to abortion. What is a person? All the arguments to support abortion. Embryonic stem cell research is flatly unproductive and unprofitable. Mostly because it (like most democrat policies) has not evolved, but been imposed, mostly to lend support for abortion.

Abortion has nothing to do with it.

You can pretend that you aren't aware that NO embryonic stem cells ever came from an abortion, but that would be a fantasy.

Embryonic stem cells are cloned, as well.

And, if the research community ever stopped doing research because there is no immediate application for that research, we wouldn't have the knowledge, technology, medications, etc. we have today.

Thus, what you are saying is clearly emotion-based and has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why? When did we decide it was okay to start drawing lines in the sand and saying, "Personhood begins with THIS level of intellect"? Do we really want to set up such a subjective and arbitrary boundary? Are we really stupid enough not to realize how easy it is to adjust such a thing at will once it is accepted?

A living human being is a person. Period. I think many people who love those with severe retardation, Alzheimer's, brain damage, etc. would agree with me that our society does not need to start trying to bestow personhood and creating classes of disposable human non-persons.

So true, and it just incredible that the Twentieth Centuries horror has not been sufficient to make all of us understand this simple Truth.

If there is one thing that all of humanity seems to excel at, it's lying to itself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the whole 'not a person' thing is a matter of the ability to think and is not about appearance. I would consider an adult human without cognitive brain function to be 'not a person' as well.

Why? When did we decide it was okay to start drawing lines in the sand and saying, "Personhood begins with THIS level of intellect"? Do we really want to set up such a subjective and arbitrary boundary? Are we really stupid enough not to realize how easy it is to adjust such a thing at will once it is accepted?

A living human being is a person. Period. I think many people who love those with severe retardation, Alzheimer's, brain damage, etc. would agree with me that our society does not need to start trying to bestow personhood and creating classes of disposable human non-persons.

We basically already do just that in multiple situations. Obviously, most people consider animals less than people because of levels of intellect. Granted, the 'cuteness' of a particular animal can be a factor too, but if we were able to speak to any animal, I am confident people would raise it in their estimation of 'personhood'. Then there is the case of a human who does not have most brain function. Many consider a 'vegetable' to no longer be a person. There is the idea of brain death. There is the morality of 'pulling the plug'. Questions of personhood are already there, abortion is just another situation to ask the question.

You are free to consider a newly fertilized egg a person, the same as any other. I cannot.

Animals? Really? You think we don't consider animals to be people because of their intelligence? Can you grasp at straws any harder?

We don't consider animals to be people because THEY'RE NOT HUMAN. There are adult animals with greater cognitive ability than a newborn baby, but I can assure you that that never comes into any consideration when deciding if the baby is a person or the dog is.

The fact that there are people sick and coldhearted enough to consider living human beings with brain damage "no longer persons" carries no weight with me, because I certainly do not aspire to sink to that level, nor do I view it as some pinnacle of wisdom and morality to attain. I consider those people to have devolved to the same bestial level as those who justified slavery on the basis that "blacks are just savage beasts, not really people at all". And by the way, please do not presume to project that depraved viewpoint onto "most" people.

By the way, being "a vegetable" - and my, what a charming and moral way to refer to another human being - is not anything like close to being brain-dead, although I realize that people so ignorant and uneducated that they actually believe there's no difference between an embryo and a cancer cell would also be too ignorant and uneducated to understand. Once again, we see the lines of reality, science, and medicine being blurred by the lazy, fuzzy thinking of laypeople who thought biology class was just something to blow off. It is sad when science gets politicized and is forced to pander to fools.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the whole 'not a person' thing is a matter of the ability to think and is not about appearance. I would consider an adult human without cognitive brain function to be 'not a person' as well.

You have moved the goal posts though, havent you? We were discussing whether the unborn child is a human being, not whether they are a person, an ambiguous term at best.

If it's the ability to think that solely makes us human, then one has to ask how well they must think to be human. An unborn child has a functioning brain so they do think at some level. So if an unborn child is not a person because they do not think quite well enough to meet your standards, where else might that line be drawn? Is a born baby a person? an adolescent? a young adult with mental disabilities? a person of the wrong race or ethnic group?

That is a very dangerous slippery slope you place the essence of humanity on.

What makes us a person is the presence of a soul. It has nothing to do with cognitive ability, only whether there is a functioning brain and the potential for independent life. This has been the definition for what makes us human for millenia, and the last century has amply shown us the dangers of abandoning that ancient standard for life, has it not?

But the simple and plain unspoken truth is that we live in a twisted society that has reduced the act of creating life to a form of entertainment. And since we crave more cars and appliances and a bigger house more than we do children, some kill some of their children in the womb in order to not have the financial setback that a baby represents in an urban society. Some kill their own because they are weak in confidence or body or faith, but the consequences are still the same.

We in effect devour our young, as the evil 'gods' did of the ancient world, and we are not going to escape the consequences. Already we must bring in more and more immigrants from alien cultures and the number of native born Americans dwindles more with each passing year.

It wont be too much longer when the Powers That Be will realize they dont have enough loyal hands to do their work, nor minds to solve their problems. But they will be too busy struggling for what scraps of diminishing power they can take for themselves to pay any mind to solving problems anyway.

We live on a rudderless ship with a helm that is covered in the dust of neglect.

That we have not recked is purely a matter of luck, but we cant stay 'lucky' for ever.

Though I hate the thought, one day our own Rhine will freeze over and the barbarians will cross the boundries we have imposed by wit and craft because our strength and devotion has long ago left us.

And then we will become re-aquainted with deprivation and suffering as our enemies take our place from us in this world.

But maybe God will be merciful and a remnant will be large enough and strong enough to restore some of what we once had some day.

Maybe.

I didn't move any goalposts. I wasn't discussing whether a fetus is a human being rather than a person. My first comment here was in response to Cecilie's post, in which she mentioned the idea of being a person and connected it to appearance.

Also, since I do not believe in a soul, I cannot believe that the presence of a soul is what determines whether something is a person or not.

And wow, that's quite a rant to go on based on my post which you didn't even really pay attention to based on your moving goalposts comment!

You seem to think that you can just state that "human being" and "person" are two different things, and everyone else is just going to nod and accept your false and arbitrary parameters on the topic. Unfortunately for you, you don't carry that sort of weight and respect, so you ARE going to have to actually discuss and defend and persuade on your assertion before you ever get a chance to go to "Well, since I'm right that they're different . . ."

So yes, if you're discussing embryos and fetuses at all, you ARE discussing whether or not you get to redefine "person". Or you're admitting that you have no factual, scientific basis for trying to belittle and demonize an entire class of people. Your choice.

Also, science tells us that everything in the universe is energy in one form or another, and energy cannot be destroyed; it can only be moved from one form to another. (Yeah, it's a simplification.) Our souls are basically the energy that animates our bodies and continues on in another form after our bodies die. It takes a stunning level of dogmatic fanaticism to refuse to believe that. And embryos and fetuses have that same energy animating them as well. Otherwise, their mothers' doctors would declare them dead in the womb and remove them before they could putrify and kill her.

 

[Si modo]

Funny, I thought this was a stem cell thread.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Funny, I thought this was a stem cell thread.

It is. And insofar as one must kill the embryo in order to harvest embryonic stem cells, it is incumbent upon us to discuss the life and humanity of the embryo we propose to destroy.