Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Your just anouther dumbass jumping on the anti christan bandwagen.

At 8/14/06 04:26 PM, Idyes wrote:

At 8/13/06 03:15 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: "Potential human beings," what a load of nonsense.

They are not "potential" human beings; they are human beings. This is the whole problem with that argument. You could take one of these embryos, put it in an artificial womb, and watch it grow up. It is a human, period!

That would work great, except this isn't Star Trek. There is no such thing as an artifical womb. They require humans for gestation. Also, your argument in no way counters the fact that we are jumping through hoops for what are only potential human beings when actual human beings are either sick or in need of the homes that these potential humans would get.

President Bush has not vetoed any bill in six years until now. The Compassionate Conservative himself, having rubber-stamped six years of increasingly arrogant and blind partisan bills, has cast a veto on one bill he cannot stand, one bill he just could not allow to be passed into law, a bill with the potential to save millions of lives and advance scientific progress in a nation that once sat at the forefront but now lags behind other, less prosperous European nations. It seems so ironic that the one bill that President Bush simply could not allow is the one bill that may actually have helped people and allowed for his legacy to be something more than Iraq and Civil Liberties violations.

Private corporations have responded to this attack on our scientific progress and the health of millions of Americans and men and women around the world by rising to the task and privately funding Stem Cell research. It seems so sad that the nation that discovered the cures for once fatal diseases, the nation that discovered nuclear power and changed the course of world history, is now choked by the election-year pandering of one man concerned with appeasing the base.

Personallity I agree with you, but it all depends on where you define a human being. I define it as a person born, not at the exact moment of fertilisation; but bush and his lot this that it is. I really really hope that a person with more that an IQ of 8 become your next Prez, because I am sick to the back teeth of bush making an arse of himself. Anrine could do a better job, and that's saying something

human being to me is when a person responds to noise and contact, direct and inderect. about 5-7 monthes into pregnancy depending on genes and circumstance.

stem-cell research imo should be allowed because isnt the life of something that isnt even alive yet worth saving thousands upon thousands of lives who die from all sorts of cancer
I just dont understand what the people lobbying against it are so upset for i mean the embryo isnt even alive its at the stage of the sperm meets the egg i just find it a stupid debate like abortion

althoug i agree this is a stupid debate, i think abortion is seriouis.
stem cell reaserch could save millions of lives but that dickhead that is bush said no.
shows how much he cares about us compared to money, dosen't it?

At 8/16/06 02:29 PM, GrammerClock wrote:

At 7/30/06 09:10 AM, stafffighter wrote:

I think you can mix religion with law and still be a rational person. Oh sure, mixing the two may be a bad idea sometimes, but I don't think it makes you any less intelligent, or the like.

I believe abortion is only okay in the situation that the woman's life is in danger. That being said, if a fetus, or zygote, or w/e was aborted in that scenario, I would see no good reason to not use it for stem-cell research.

What if the mother wanted to donate the aborted child for stem cell research? It's not uncommon for the next of kin to allow for the donation of a deceased relatives organs when the deceased did not make their intentions known. Considering that the fetus was aborted because it would have killed the mother and not for stem cell research, there is no real ethical conflict if the mother gives permission.

At 8/13/06 01:42 PM, Blamitality wrote: Can someone please explain Stem Cell Research a bit better cause all ive heard is "ITS GONNA BE THE END OF THE WORRRRLD NOOOOOOOO!!!!" Im serious..

Stem cells are cells that have the potential to turn into any cell in the human body as long as the person or animal is still alive. Theoretically, stem cells can serve as a sort of repair system for the body by dividing without limit to replenish cells that have died.

When a stem cell divides, it creates two “daughter” cells which have the ability to either stay a stem cell or become a specialised cell, such as heart tissue or a brain cell. There are three classes of stem cells: totipotent, multipotent and pluripotent. A fertilized egg is considered totipotent. This means that it has total potential to form all the types of cells the body needs. Multipotent cells can create a small number of different cell types. Pluripotent stem cells can create any type of cell in the body except those that can create a foetus.

Pluripotent stem cells are only found in human embryos that are only a few days old. Cells from these embryos can be used to create pluripotent stem cell “lines”. These lines are cell cultures that are grown indefinitely in a laboratory. Pluripotent stem cells have also been developed from foetal tissue that is older than two months of development.

Potentially, stem cells could be a cure to now incurable diseases. Take Alzheimer’s for example, it is caused by parts of the brain dying killing certain memories and functions. Brain cells cannot regenerate therefore causing the condition to be permanent. Also there would be hope for people who are paralysed due to spinal cord injuries. Stem cells would be implanted where the spinal cord has been damaged and they would replace the damaged cells with new ones.

Now that you know what stem cells are, what do you think stem cell research is?

embryonic stem cells arent safe for medicine. they require to 'become' a part of your body, inorder to repair and fix, but the problem is that the cells have different DNA than you, and your body will mostly reject the cells. however, if you takes cells from a persons own body, like from spinal tissue, then the body wont reject it

Ok, I know many of u disagree, but America is probably the nicest nation ever. Why? We honor human life so much, we'd rather let thousands die than kill someone in the process of saving them. Take the death penalty 4 instance. By saving the life of a murderer, we allow them the chance to kill again. By saving 1 life, we endanger many more. I'm all for stem-cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research will surely advance the progress of ifnding cures, but it is highly unethical.

A human embryo is a partially developed human being, there is no argumer
Now, to justify whether it cannot feel pain is used to defend many scientists intentions, but you are still killing what some day would be a human.

And why embryonic stem cells? Last time I checked, bushed supported adult stem cell reasearch, umbilical cord stem cells, and not as morally contreversial areas.

Do you think Bush doesn't want to witness cure's for hundreds of diseases/disorders with the work of stem cells? I dont.

He just wants to play it safe.

Embryonic stem cells are a failure.

At 9/5/06 12:53 PM, pt9-9 wrote: Embryonic stem cell research will surely advance the progress of ifnding cures, but it is highly unethical.

A human embryo is a partially developed human being, there is no argumer
Now, to justify whether it cannot feel pain is used to defend many scientists intentions, but you are still killing what some day would be a human.

And why embryonic stem cells? Last time I checked, bushed supported adult stem cell reasearch, umbilical cord stem cells, and not as morally contreversial areas.

Do you think Bush doesn't want to witness cure's for hundreds of diseases/disorders with the work of stem cells? I dont.

He just wants to play it safe.

Ethics is only a good argument if everyone has the same ethics. Last time I checked, we all don't have the same ones. Sure, it might be unethical to some people, but for others, it's not.

At 7/30/06 06:08 PM, Kasualty wrote: Because it's more likely that the embryo grows up to be a fat teenager named Cody.

What's wrong with the name Cody?

I fucking hate the religous comunity

At 7/30/06 08:47 AM, SamDominion wrote: Recently, there has been a debate about Stem Cell Research. I'm for it, what happens to embryos, they aren't even alive. There could be a cure for cancer made through it.

If by recently, you mean the last decade, then yes....recently.

First the government said yes to it, and I said Hooray for that!
Then these Pro Lifists and Anti Abortionists religious zealots started saying "We're hurt, we hate you, whahahahahahaah."

Well, you took a debate of monumental importance and reduced it to gibberish...good job.

So then, a week later the senate ( i think it was them) said No to Stem cell research, to make up for it.
The cure for cancer is being delayed because some idiots got their feelings hurt?

So because someone promised a cure for cancer, and we said no, cancer won't get cured. That's moronic.
I promise that I will cure cancer with.....jolly ranchers....so give me money. After all, I PROMISED!

That's Bullshit!
How could people be so stupid?
When will they stop mixing religion with law?
Please discuss.
Please, no one saying "YOu suck monkeys nuts" or anything.n

And your lack of knowledge about the topic is sad. Please don't vote. You don't know any of either side's arguments about the case.

At 7/30/06 09:10 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 7/30/06 08:47 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

When people become wholey rational creatures. Good luck waiting for that

There's quite a bit of stupidity on the pro-stem cell side of the fence....

The key issue in this is the inital abortion rights. The stem cells used are from sources that wouldn't grow into a person anyway. These women were already going to give up the embryos for whatever reason she has anyway, using it to preserve the lives of others is amoung the more noble ways to go.

There's a bit more to it then that. Such as, for over a decade, embryonic stem cells have had ZERO successes in their research. Also is that some don't want to fund something they disagree with. And finally, since the government has a habit of funding failure (and encouraging failure) people don't want MORE research put in the government's hands.

At 7/30/06 09:14 AM, SamDominion wrote: I know, but people are still saying "You're killing something that'll be a human being."
If they care so much about something that's barely as big as the head of a pin, I wonder why people sacrifice animals?

Size is irrelevant to the debate. People who make the point about size know they have nothing else to stand on. And since animals aren't people, they don't have the same standing.

I've always found it stupid when people say it's ok to kill humans but complain about animals.

At 7/30/06 06:08 PM, Kasualty wrote: Bush vetoed it for the US. Ha, his first veto and it's on an issue that almost all liberals support and almost all moderate republicans support, that could cure cancer along with other diseases, what an asshat. And I hate when people are like "That embryo could grow up to be the person that cures cancer without using stem cells." Because it's more likely that the embryo grows up to be a fat teenager named Cody.

Most politicians support whatever their constituents tell them to. It cures nothing. It actually CAUSES cancer (teratomas). And it's most likely that there will be no positive benefit, and we'll perpetually spend money...like public schools, or governmental programs of any stripes.

At 8/13/06 03:15 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: bunch of useless arguments

Well, that's all well and good, but none of it is even remotely relevant. If they want tax payers to pay for it....then the tax payers can object for any reason they want.

The stem cell debate is over ONE thing. Governmental funding. It is a failed useless science, and therefore cannot get money from greedy companies so it wants the government to shell out money.

At 8/15/06 02:37 AM, Truthiness wrote: President Bush has not vetoed any bill in six years until now. The Compassionate Conservative himself, having rubber-stamped six years of increasingly arrogant and blind partisan bills, has cast a veto on one bill he cannot stand, one bill he just could not allow to be passed into law, a bill with the potential to save millions of lives and advance scientific progress in a nation that once sat at the forefront but now lags behind other, less prosperous European nations. It seems so ironic that the one bill that President Bush simply could not allow is the one bill that may actually have helped people and allowed for his legacy to be something more than Iraq and Civil Liberties violations.

There is nothing in this bill that a. would help millions of people or b. forces us behind other nations. The majority of major scientific advances still come out of America, and we're certainly not falling behind less prosperous nations. Hooray for spouting pure bull with no fact behind it.

And as for those "blindly partisan bills" he's signed: No Child Left Behind...written by Kennedy (D). He tried to get the American people behind the Democratic party's immigration bill. He signed a bill that allowed the morning after pill to be sold over counters.

Yea, I've made my point.

Private corporations have responded to this attack on our scientific progress and the health of millions of Americans and men and women around the world by rising to the task and privately funding Stem Cell research. It seems so sad that the nation that discovered the cures for once fatal diseases, the nation that discovered nuclear power and changed the course of world history, is now choked by the election-year pandering of one man concerned with appeasing the base.

No one is privately funding Stem Cell Research. Because if they were....well hell, there'd be no debate. The whole debate is "We can't get funding...so we want governmental funding." And most of the organizations behind the bill (such as the American Diabetes Association) stand to profit from federal grants.

It's sad that people are so blindly partisan they can't be bothered to do any research and just rely on the first article they read.

At 9/4/06 07:00 AM, Jelly-Angel wrote: Stem cells are cells that have the potential to turn into any cell in the human body as long as the person or animal is still alive. Theoretically, stem cells can serve as a sort of repair system for the body by dividing without limit to replenish cells that have died.

Adult stem cells have already fulfilled much of the potential that embryonic stem cells have promised. Stem cells have that potential yes (that is how they work)...however, they have no clue how to make them do that. Every attempt for a decade has failed. Theory is just that. However, not only have they failed in generating these cures.....the results have been disasterous.

Pluripotent stem cells can create any type of cell in the body except those that can create a foetus.

Yet we don't know how and the CLOSEST we are to a cure if we fund it to infinity is 3 decades, assuming they figure it out tomorrow.

Potentially, stem cells could be a cure to now incurable diseases. Take Alzheimer’s for example, it is caused by parts of the brain dying killing certain memories and functions. Brain cells cannot regenerate therefore causing the condition to be permanent. Also there would be hope for people who are paralysed due to spinal cord injuries. Stem cells would be implanted where the spinal cord has been damaged and they would replace the damaged cells with new ones.

Spinal cord injuries already have some hope in adult stem cells. And potential means nothing. The stem cell "pros" have admitted that they can't promise anything, but that they "might be able to figure out something".

Now that you know what stem cells are, what do you think stem cell research is?

A waste of my money.

At 9/5/06 12:53 PM, pt9-9 wrote: Embryonic stem cell research will surely advance the progress of ifnding cures, but it is highly unethical.

Actually, there's little chance we'll ever get anything positive out of stem cells. It'll probably be like that ever elusive cure for aids and cancer. "All we need is 500 million more. This is the last time....we swear...."

And why embryonic stem cells? Last time I checked, bushed supported adult stem cell reasearch, umbilical cord stem cells, and not as morally contreversial areas.

Bush actually approved a bill for EMBRYONIC stem cells. The restrictions were embryos already stated for destruction and little governmental funding. Now they want more....(go figure). That NEVER comes out in debates. Bush just doesn't want to fund it.

Do you think Bush doesn't want to witness cure's for hundreds of diseases/disorders with the work of stem cells? I dont.

At 7/30/06 06:08 PM, Kasualty wrote: Bush vetoed it for the US. Ha, his first veto and it's on an issue that almost all liberals support and almost all moderate republicans support, that could cure cancer along with other diseases, what an asshat. And I hate when people are like "That embryo could grow up to be the person that cures cancer without using stem cells." Because it's more likely that the embryo grows up to be a fat teenager named Cody.

Lauhging my ass off over here.

But yeah, I remember somewhere seeing somebody draw up a diagram of famous people, everyone from joan of arc to mahatma gandhi to martin luther king jr., talking about how bad the world would be if they'd been the victims of embryonic stem cell research. What the fuck kind of argument is that?

At 8/14/06 04:26 PM, Idyes wrote:

At 8/13/06 03:15 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: "Potential human beings," what a load of nonsense.

They are not "potential" human beings; they are human beings. This is the whole problem with that argument. You could take one of these embryos, put it in an artificial womb, and watch it grow up. It is a human, period!

Yeah....

But who wants to raise that person? You?! lol

If every one of them was allowed to grow into a person it would just cause even more problems with children not getting adopted. Since the children never received love they would eventually wind up in prison despised by society.

Maybe there wouldn’t be a problem here if all of the people that wanted the ''humans" to be born actually adopted some children and raised them as their own, but so many are unwilling to live with the responsibilities of their views.

Hmm, this topic is a year old.

Yes, I'm back!

I seriously think it's stupid.

At 8/15/06 02:34 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: That would work great, except this isn't Star Trek. There is no such thing as an artifical womb.

You can't SERIOUSLY be this retarded. It just isn't possible.

What is this?

Hmmm . . . .

Here.

Moar.

Closer and closer.

What's that you say?

;

I don't have a huge beef with stem cell research; my fear is simply rejecting the idea because it 'sounds wrong' is emotional-istic, and should thus be avoided.

I'm just curious why The stem cells NEED to be taken from embryo's.

Also; [and this is a specific personal question] is anyone here in FAVOR of stem cell research, but opposed to [one or more of the following]

- genetic modification on animals / Crops
- genetic testing on animals / crops
- genetic testing on humans

If you are going to answer this, please don't get defensive, and don't make assumptions on what my ulterior motives are for asking these questions. if YOU think I'm judging you based on your answers, you might very well be questioning yourself and not me.

And lastly, if it doesn't work; i only hope the Scientific community is more careful about it's ultimatums to set for the government in policy; we don't need a 21st century Clergy. but only 10 percent of me questions whether or not the research will do any good.

This is not about Religion you idiot. It's about the value of human life, why should we punish the unborn because of the illnesses/conditions of the living? Not to mention that the study on these embryos have proved that they are much less valuable and ethical than ADULT stem cells. Link

At 10/8/07 12:39 AM, Gwarfan wrote: This is not about Religion you idiot. It's about the value of human life, why should we punish the unborn because of the illnesses/conditions of the living? Not to mention that the study on these embryos have proved that they are much less valuable and ethical than ADULT stem cells. Link

True true, There's still the issue of who is going to parent the potential life form assuming we took those embryo's and gave them a shot at life.

I also have a few questions;

1) Are Adult Stem cell researches being conducted today?

2) If the answer is yes, why haven't they revealed the miraculous cure for cancer and the plague? [This could work to your favor so don't get defensive about it]

At 10/8/07 09:58 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 10/8/07 12:39 AM, Gwarfan wrote: This is not about Religion you idiot. It's about the value of human life, why should we punish the unborn because of the illnesses/conditions of the living? Not to mention that the study on these embryos have proved that they are much less valuable and ethical than ADULT stem cells. Link

True true, There's still the issue of who is going to parent the potential life form assuming we took those embryo's and gave them a shot at life.

I also have a few questions;

1) Are Adult Stem cell researches being conducted today?

yes, since people with problems with embryonic stem cell research wanted an alternative.

2) If the answer is yes, why haven't they revealed the miraculous cure for cancer and the plague? [This could work to your favor so don't get defensive about it]

The problem is that the embryo contains hundreds of stem cells, while an average adult would contain only a little, this is why scientists want to do embroyonic stem cell research instead, because it would take a lot faster than adult stem cell research.

Go to 5, it shows you.

olol

Awesome. I ain't getting involved.

At 7/30/06 06:08 PM, Kasualty wrote: And I hate when people are like "That embryo could grow up to be the person that cures cancer without using stem cells." Because it's more likely that the embryo grows up to be a fat teenager named Cody.

I think that the best part about this statement is that statistically it is actually true.