Best
90 Comments
Post
  • #7
    !
    Let me let you 'Pubs and Dems in on a little secret. "Progress" is not about opening our borders to WTF-ever, doubling the amount of people on government-welfare, and dividing the people by race or ethnicity with political rhetoric. THIS is what progress is about...and the only reason it's such a touchy subject with the-powers-that-be is the fact that BIG PHARMA IS MAKING TONS OF MONEY BY NOT CURING ANYTHING AT ALL. Can you blame them? Why wouldn't those crooks want to get in on the "dependency-game" too? They can make billions treating something that they would probably only make millions curing. Is it right? NO. If you don't like it, try taking a stand instead of demonizing new ideas simply because you might not like the idea of terminating a pregnancy every now and then. And no, I'm not sticking up for Planned Parenthood, because they're just as guilty as Big Pharma. They'd much rather rake in the dough on any kind of abortion than take their lazy rear-ends out into the streets and actually try to educate some of these mental-midgets. It's just a fact that not every fetus is going to make it...s--t happens. When it does, we should allow the researchers to take advantage of it, regardless of what Big Pharma and the politicians that they have in their pockets think about it.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #73
    !
    Government taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research. China goes for this all the way. China also forces abortions after your first child.
    Trust your government? Lol. There was nothing wrong with the way this was handled in the first place. It had laws to abide by. Morals. Ethics. Why wouldn't Obama slap an executive order here also?
  • #53
    !
    I think that yes, there does need to be some government regulation of what could potentially be a dangerous science. That said, those regulations should be based on science, not on religious (or personal) beliefs. Embryonic stem cell research is infinitely valuable to our understanding of disease and how to treat it, and limiting its use because of personal moral beliefs only hinders scientific progress. Regulations should only come into play when the science is being used for reasons other than medical research.
  • #47
    !
    @Libertatem well, other than the fact that it's getting hotter, and that geologists are telling us that there's enough potable water to last us for only around 50 years, it seems to be getting better and better. *grin*
  • #8
    !
    What an absolute crock. The ruling essentially says that it's fine for the government to use embryonic stem cells as long as you get them from the back of some guy's van and you don't ask any questions about where he got them from. As if they could come from anything other than a human embryo which was deliberately destroyed to harvest the stem cells!

    It is against the law to sell organs such as kidneys precisely because doing so would create a profit incentive to harm people in order to harvest their organs. I can't fathom how the court could fail to perceive the same dynamic here, unless the justices believe that there are embryonic stem cells that came from some sort of immaculate stem cell conception.

    This is a cowardly ruling that hides behind a technicality in order to avoid dealing with hard truths.
  • #13
    !
    it seems that you're panicking here. there are a great many embryos that are available without having been harmed by anyone. what about still borns, and spontaneous abortions.
  • #22
    !
    @dances-weebles - The issue isn't how the embryo comes into being. The issue is that getting stem cells from an embryo isn't like drawing blood. It destroys the embryo, like harvesting organs from a deceased person, except that the deceased person has to give their permission for that to happen. Nobody asks the parents of stillborn babies if they want to donate the embryo to medical research - they just take them anyway.
  • #26
    !
    @Stratton and this makes a difference, how? when an embryo comes out of the mother, no matter how, it's tossed into the bin.. would you rather that it was simply thrown away and sent to the incinerator, or put to practical use... like curing my mother's parkinson's or my wife's diabetes? what about my brother's advanced diabetes? how many people could be saved from dying of heart attacks through stem cell research? to me an ethical solution would be to cure the living of terrible diseases... not worry about those who are already dead. it's not like someone's out killing embryos so that they can use the parts.
  • #33
    !
    @dances-weebles We already use Stem Cells on hearts. You can actually get them from Bone Marrow too. They would technically be much more useful from Embryonic sources though.
    http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/first-us...
    The biggest problem with things like this, as RAW touched on earlier, is the FDA. It gets in the way of a lot of things that could be life saving.
  • #34
    !
    @Fishbone345 i don't believe that the fda is as large a problem as is 'religion'. they've brainwashed people somehow into believing that people are trying to play 'god'. go figure.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    They only want less regulation on things that make them money. More regulations on things they don't agree with.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #90
    !
    Yes, the purpose of stem cell research is to help others overcome genetic diseases that hinder them from engaging in occupational and social functions of their life. I fully support stem cell research.
  • #76
    !
    It's ridiculous to protect embryos.
    There is some debate about when human consciousness and awareness begins, but an embryo certainly doesn't have it. There is no entity experiencing anything that could be "harmed" in any way.
  • #74
    !
    the federal government is to avoid, any religious issues. and this judge, is got to be the stupidist judge in the whole world. if you get it from somewhere else, it is not harming an embryo. thats like saying, it is ok to hire a hit man.
  • #72
    !
    There shouldn't be a ban on embryonic stem cell research and the requirement that a private source for stem cells be used should be overturned.
  • #23
    !
    It's about time someone showed some sense and got rid if the DA Bush moratorium on stem cell research. This program shows great promise for curing many genetic deficiencies in children. Hell it mite even make some RepTea party people nice human beings again!! I'm sure that their mean and spiteful atitudes ate genetic malfunctions. We've already found out that heart transplants don't work. We're desperately trying to find a cure for them!!
  • #10
    !
    Already derived ESCs is the compromise. Imagine that... A compromise. I believe in time (this is clearly a present-day controversy) technology may make ASCs as valuable as ESCs... Call me an optimist, but anything is possible, right? Technology has no conscience...
  • #14
    !
    yes, compromise. that's good. not only that, but this shouldn't even be a controversial topic. god has given us the ability to use our minds and the technology to do so. i think that it's wonderful what they can now do with stem cells and that our future is brighter for it.
  • #46
    !
    @dances-weebles I think it's controversal for good reason... It's a matter of life and death, the only two constants in the universe. IMHO if we can figure out how to make ASCs as valuable and effective as ESCs at fighting disease (and there could be other solutions), then the controversy over funding for ESC research may end, or it may change for better or worse. I tend to believe the former. You need only point to the monumental advances in medical science during the last 50 years to convince me that it is indeed possible to overcome our current dilemma. Only time will tell. Down with disease!
  • #54
    !
    @dances-weebles Funding for ESC research is what's controversial. However, there IS no "life and death CONTROVERSY" because life and death are indisputable. They are universal CONSTANTS, as in regular and invariable. Never changing. You know... like how the only constants in LIFE are death, taxes, and human stupidity.
  • #56
    !
    @Gilbert oh. i must have misunderstood. it looked like you had written something like,'I think it's controversal for good reason... It's a matter of life and death...' anyway, i don't think so. a dead embryo is only going to be tossed, anyway. why not put it to practical use?
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    !
    Too bad it's too late for my brother, who's dying of MS, and my mom & my sister, who died from cancer ---- but, what's that saying? "Better late than never."
  • #31
    !
    @TheLoneRanger saying no to stem cell research is saying no to what god has offered us through medical science. he's offering us a method of curing some of the most horrible, the cruelest miladies we can suffer, such as cancer, parkinsons, diabetes, arthritis, and a host of others. not only that, but stem cell research has enabled women to create their very own sperm cells to fertilise their own ovum, and therefore enabling them to completely cut out the need to shop around in bars for someone to mate with.
  • #44
    !
    TheLoneRanger, if you admittedly haven't researched the subject, I wonder that you bother to share your opinion? Your lack of knowledge renders your opinion rather meaningless.
  • R Load more replies

Post