President Obama signed an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. And while this move was lauded by many in the scientific community as a means to helping cure a wide array of diseases, the religious right had a very different vision of the future. Here it is:
Yeah it's true because I said it. I'm like a 20 year old genius over here with several degrees. Oh wait no I'm some dipshit kid who wrote a 300 word paper that took me two weeks and used sources that are biased in favor of stem cell research.....Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu....don't forget to look in the suppository for it.....Dat shits true,they werks better.
Maybe site some examples of why they are better you worm. Until then shut up and go back to playing your PS3.
i support killing babies for science. as a matter of fact, i support killing babies just for laughs. come to thing of it, i'd support the killing of the majority of you just out of boredom.
I was interning at the White House in 2004 at it was my job to formulate concrete facts on the subject of Embryonic Stem Cells.
Here are my findings:
If we used babies born in the Bronx, NY whose parents were:
A) Crack heads
B) Under the age of 16
C) Jamaican
D) Dominican
E) Living in their own grandparent's basement while driving a Cadillac Escalade with 22" rims
F) Ecuadorian
Then we would see sharp declines in the following: welfare, drug use, gang violence, domestic violence, regular violence,lack of common decency, and illegal guns.
We concluded that if we used babies whose parents fit only one of these categories, then it would yield a 63.4% decrease across the board. If the babies we choose had parents from each of the categories, then we would see almost a total absence of all criminal activity on a nationwide level. It would only take one generation before we can begin to see the effects of the research.
However, the plan was never implemented because of two reasons. One, because it was 2004, an election year, and President Bush didn't want to offend the minority voters, and, two, because Jesus told him it wasn't right.
You either: A, fall into one of those categories and are offended, or B, have never been to, or had to deal with the general population of the Bronx.
I, my friend, happen to fall into one of those categories and was born, grew up, and now work everyday, in said city. Therefore, my credentials are sound, and I can say what ever the fuck I want about the good ol' Bronx.
I can say things like, they should test nuclear bombs there, or they poison the water so all the ignorant, degenerate pigs that live there can't procreate. However, I do want them to create babies, so we can suck out their little ghetto-ass stem cells.
So, a racist I am not; a jackass maybe, but not by the content of my previous post.
Wow never thought I'd see a embryonic stem cell flame war on 'Holy Taco'. Usually I come to Holy Taco to get away from all the so-called politics and just enjoy a good laugh. But words of advice for Holy Taco please don't go political since either the libs or cons will tune out, thus losing 50% of the potential audience. We all need to be able to laugh about things equally both libs and cons together, especially during these difficult times.
What the hell is it about doing anything political that causes idiots like you to try and stop it. It's ok to make fun of fat people and midgets, but don't be getting political now. Carry on HT. We live in a free country.
Okay Pete how about a compromise; a liberal monkey and conservative monkey riding on bears on motorcycles on tight ropes to the death. Best political party wins!
All humor aside, the moral objection is that human life should be protected, and treated with dignity. The area of disagreement (I hope) is that stem-cell research advocates deny that the embryo is human. (Though maybe some are OK with slaughtering humans for scientific advancement? "Science over ideology").
If you're going to poke fun at the religious rights position, at least make fun of the real position and not a straw man.
Pastor Matt, You got that right. Embryos aren't human so they aren't to be protected like a human. Besides we make the rules. Human life is to be protected because society collectively decided that it's best for the sake of our society. We get to decide when some cells become human, not some declaration motivated by sacredness.
It's not like women go out and have abortions because they're fun or they have nothing better to do on a Friday night. They do it because they are scared or uneducated or alone and they know that they can't raise a child by themselves. If they are going to have an abortion anyway, shouldn't SOME good come of it (i.e. the embryonic stem cells)?
The solution isn't banning ESCR, it's teaching women how to protect themselves from needing an abortion in the first place (and regardless what anyone thinks, it should come down to the woman protecting herself -- it's not the man that will have anything to "take care of" later). Regardless of your religious orientation, it has to be clear that people are having sex both outside of marriage and for reasons other than procreation. Little can be done to stop the sex, but much can be done to stop the pregnancies.
So as long as abortions are legal (and I think they should be and should remain so), why not have some good come of it, and save some lives? As long as women don't get compensated in ANY way for use of the embryo, it shouldn't even be up for debate.
With all due respect, the embryos that are used in Embryonic stem cell research are derived from the left over fertilized eggs that result from In vitro fertilisation (IVF). This debate has nothing to due with abortion other than the fact that both abortion and embryonic stem cells are the destruction of human life. Whether one agrees or not science has proven that life begins at conception. Yet this confusion only highlights that many people are unaware of what embryonic stem cell research really is.
IVF Embryos are ALIVE, yes, and they have the potential to divide into/become a human given time. But Alive doesn't mean much at the small cluster of cells point in development. There's no nervous system, no endocrine system...mostly no cellular differentiation at all (the definition of STEM cell).
The reason they plant a number of embryos during IVF is because women spontaneously miscarry in the early stages All The Time. Is purgatory peopled with naturally aborted embryo souls?
People who can't allow themselves to distinguish between an undifferentiated (yeah, alive) cluster of cells and a person have no business voting.
If I understand things correctly. Abortion is legal in all 50 states. So there are thousands of discard embryos considered to be medical waste, correct? Would that be the source for embryonic stem cell research? Why not use the discarded embryos to give another person the chance to live.
I agree. At the risk of sounding callous, why let them be "wasted?" I understand moral inhibitions; I'm a Christian, and I like to think the value of life is something I have a SLIGHT grasp on. But at the same time, God presents humanity with opportunities, to either embrace or ignore. This looks like an opportunity to use something that has been provided, and even though it's unsettling, it is better to use the option than waste it.
Aha! Well there's your problem. You don't know what you're talking about. Abortion produces a dead fetus. An embryo is a microscopic cluster of cells that occurs way before you even know you're pregnant.
Embryonic stem cells come from people who have used science to try and have children because they can't conceive normally. Once they've had a child or two, the left over embryos are superfluous. The only way not to destroy them (one way or another) is for everyone to stop having sex to procreate and use these frozen embryos until we run out of them in a few hundred years.
There are alternatives for the religionists who find the whole idea of stem cell research abhorrent: Don't use the results. So when science finds a cure for cancer or diabetes or heart disease, they don't have to take advantage of the cure for themselves or their families, they can do the biblically correct thing and hope for a miracle.
All you religious people obviously don't know whats going on. Stem cells cure people. Yes, they could possibly one day have grown into a human. But you'd be taking a life either way. And if you thought about it a little, would you want to be suffering with Parkinson's disease? No. You'd want a cure. From stem cells. God wants life? Then why not keep the lives we have rather than bring new ones into this hell hole?
You said, "But you'd be taking a life either way." No, you wouldn't. Do you honestly see no distinction between actually destroying a life versus a disease taking a life? As to the argument, "they'll be destroyed anyway," a consistent advocate of life opposes the creation of fertilized eggs for any other purpose than bringing them from pre-womb to post womb life.
Obviously, other laws already create a system where we have discarded embryonic humans "so," you say, "why not put them to use?"
Because, if we benefit financially, medically, and in other ways from the killing of innocent human life, we're even LESS inclined to protect it.
And is every sperm sacred? Is menstruation murder? After all, that's human DNA in there that could, under the right circumstances, have become a human being.
A blasotcyst is not a life - get real! It's 50 frigging cells with no resemblance to human being. Besides who cares - all this crap about the sacredness of life. You don't really want a thinking person to believe that letting someone die because you've saved a blastocyst is reasonable? That's preverted!
The rest of the world doesn't give a shit about this christian dogma.
"The rest of the world doesn't give a shit about this christian dogma."
That's your opinion; it's not just Christians that support the right to life.
Besides, those meaningless 50 frigging cells? Yeah, you were them once. We all were. A zygote compromises everything that initially defines us as living beings.
First, don't generalize for all if us "religious" people. I consider myself a pretty devout Christian, and I don't believe that stem cell research is wrong, by any means. If God has placed the opportunity in front of us to solve some of our MANY problems, the solution should be embraced. That's not to condone abortion or anything... that's a totally different argument. But, in the event that there are ready stem cells that can be used for something productive, then the choice is rather simple.
Second, claiming that others "don't know what's going on" while you CLEARLY assume that you do is both an unfair argument and an easy way to look like an ass. Try to keep the slander down, slick.
Cholly What research are you referring to in regards to creationism/Intelligent design. Please list the scientific journals and peered reviewed papers that have been released. There is none - its all bogus - THERE IS NOT CONTROVERSY HERE - please move on. Oh and by the way the world is not flat, was not created in 6 days ( or 60, or 6000 years).
Yahweh is the god of war - you are all worshiping the planet mars
When you state you have done the research for both sides remember that in terms of evolution there are no sides - as of March 10,2009 there is only one working explanation for the diversity of life on this or any other planet. This does not mean that evolution is correct - but it is the only explanation born out of observation and testing and that has shown any accuracy at explaining past events and predicting future ones.
I have go so tired of politely allowing the the religous to state whatever the want without being checked....
If Americans would just pay attention to something other than their own navels once in a while, they'd notice that up here in Canada we've discovered a way of creating stem cells without embryos. It's a nice gesture that Obama overturned that ban, but sort of a bit too late for it to mean anything concrete.
the cells you are talking about are created with adult samples. adult dna is degraded, explaining problems with cloning etc. embryonic stem cells are still needed for research. they produce the best results.
There is no science in the bible, the age of modern science happened after the age of "invent fantasies to explain everything we don't understand, which is a lot because we live in the mthrfckng BRONZE AGE."
Mankind is going to keep progressing and the superstitious can keep regressing if they like: Go join the Amish and give up all modern technology, including the results of stem-cell research. Please. Go sequester yourselves in Alaska and live your lives according to "laws" created thousands of years ago to control the ignorant and fearful population. Or, enjoy the fruits of the modern age: electricity, indoor plumbing, penicillin and Advil™ and keep your religious beliefs where they belong: in your own private homes and churches.
But a religion unlived is no religion at all. Isn't that what is most upsetting about those who profess, but do not walk like they speak? Belief should never be confined, if it truly is something cherished and believed to be truthful.
There's plenty of science in the Bible. Are not all these things we discuss going to be understood differently 50 years from now? So then what remains unchanged through the course of time are the principles that were the same yesterday as they are today. We just come up with clever names and deeper understandings.
When prophets hundreds of years earlier described metal dragons with fire in their bellies, we today call them tanks. And if you want to descredit that book of Revelation, perhaps you should also consult such works as Edward Case or Notre Damus who also saw more than what eyes perceive.
Don't put too much trust in human potential and intellect. We're wrong more often than we're right. It doesn't take but a turn of the head to see we move from one disaster to another. And we're all to blame just the same. There is something else happening, something elusive, something unseen, and something that can only be understood by pursuing it. Some have seen it and struggled to find the words to describe it.
Hokey religion? I don't think so. If you want one, there are many to choose from. But there's no ignoring the evidence of something more than what can be packaged and sold.
It's easy to choose an extreme, place its reasponsiblity on a group you dont' like, and say I'm against them. The things that make life fulfilling for any of us today are the same as those in the beginning of this race. The only thing different is the outer packaging.
From where I stand this was a discussion on stem cells, so how we always manage to stumble into the old 'religion vs science' debate again I don't know..... (sounds like little children argueing over whose toy is better than the others)
First off neither of you are right because until it has been proven beyond all measure of doubt that either one of you is right then sorry, by all means you are entitled to your opinions, but don't shove your ideas and beliefs down other peoples necks.
Apologies to all those whose religion clashes with this subject but i'm afraid nobody cares what you think. (This is not intended to be offensive). As long as society is progressing (or thinks it is) then anything that may be considered to make humans stronger, more superior and more advanced will always win over religion.
Why? Because we can f*kin well do what we like, regardless of the consequences, we have free will and will proceed to do what we think we are capable of. Whether that is climbing Mount Everest or using stem cell research on embryos.
Anyone is free to tell me i'm wrong, not really bothered.
"stem cells without embryos" the US has been doing that, genius. but more things can be done WITH embryonic stem cell research. so shut the hell up about your self-righteous country, canadians. nobody gives a rats ass about you guys, "the loft above the party" aka America Jr.
you are a MORON. I guess that's why we are not suffering half as much as you guys are right now. The loft above the 'party' -haha yeah you've got that right. I guess you guys have just partied a little too hard...sucks doesn't it?
Who are you talking to? You sound like a complete joke. Don't give us Americans a bad rap just 'cause you're so ignorant. Canada should not be refered to as America Jr. You are a dumbass.
You can respect life without losing your mind over it.
What it boils down to; if it bothers you that much, then don't use the medical advancements to help yourself.
I know that seems hard-assed, but it is the only way to not be a hypocrite.
Why is it ok to meddle with "GOD'S" work by mixing up a baby in a test tube, but not using the discarded ones to HEAL people (Who should be healed by this GOD person who never comes through).
People seem to debate only the fact that we can't use stem cells from embryos, when these things are unnatural in the first place.
HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!
It's the "Discarding" you mention that is the issue Anonymous. Humans are not toilet paper, bubblegum wrappers, or bubble wrap, humans are not things which ought to be discarded.
The "natural" argument *is* (as you point out) a weak argument, as it's natural for my teeth to decay, but medical advancements produce toothpaste which can help.
The problem comes in disrespecting / trivializing / holding irreverence to human life.
As for "should God be healing these people" tangent- substantial scholarship has been written on the topic over centuries of time. That is not a new issue and has been (many think) reasonably and sufficiently dealt with.
(164 Comments)
Twitter
Holy Taco Goes to the Bahamas
March 10th, 2009 at 09:37 am
Yeah it's true because I said it. I'm like a 20 year old genius over here with several degrees. Oh wait no I'm some dipshit kid who wrote a 300 word paper that took me two weeks and used sources that are biased in favor of stem cell research.....Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu....don't forget to look in the suppository for it.....Dat shits true,they werks better.
Maybe site some examples of why they are better you worm. Until then shut up and go back to playing your PS3.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
That's not how you write "cite", Mom.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
ahaha
Attempt at superiority Fail
tool.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
LOL, pretty funny dude!
RT
www.Privacy-Center.net
March 10th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
This board is making me so frustrated! Excuse me while I go lube up my cross.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
i support killing babies for science. as a matter of fact, i support killing babies just for laughs. come to thing of it, i'd support the killing of the majority of you just out of boredom.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
lol, me2
March 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I was interning at the White House in 2004 at it was my job to formulate concrete facts on the subject of Embryonic Stem Cells.
Here are my findings:
If we used babies born in the Bronx, NY whose parents were:
A) Crack heads
B) Under the age of 16
C) Jamaican
D) Dominican
E) Living in their own grandparent's basement while driving a Cadillac Escalade with 22" rims
F) Ecuadorian
Then we would see sharp declines in the following: welfare, drug use, gang violence, domestic violence, regular violence,lack of common decency, and illegal guns.
We concluded that if we used babies whose parents fit only one of these categories, then it would yield a 63.4% decrease across the board. If the babies we choose had parents from each of the categories, then we would see almost a total absence of all criminal activity on a nationwide level. It would only take one generation before we can begin to see the effects of the research.
However, the plan was never implemented because of two reasons. One, because it was 2004, an election year, and President Bush didn't want to offend the minority voters, and, two, because Jesus told him it wasn't right.
March 10th, 2009 at 06:23 pm
You're a racist jackass. Shut the hell up. Oh, and I'm in favor of stem cell research, just not in favor of you.
March 10th, 2009 at 08:32 pm
You either: A, fall into one of those categories and are offended, or B, have never been to, or had to deal with the general population of the Bronx.
I, my friend, happen to fall into one of those categories and was born, grew up, and now work everyday, in said city. Therefore, my credentials are sound, and I can say what ever the fuck I want about the good ol' Bronx.
I can say things like, they should test nuclear bombs there, or they poison the water so all the ignorant, degenerate pigs that live there can't procreate. However, I do want them to create babies, so we can suck out their little ghetto-ass stem cells.
So, a racist I am not; a jackass maybe, but not by the content of my previous post.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
What about using stem cells from babies that were miscarried? Just think of a miscarriage as "Gods Abortion", and everything will be ethically ok.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Wow never thought I'd see a embryonic stem cell flame war on 'Holy Taco'. Usually I come to Holy Taco to get away from all the so-called politics and just enjoy a good laugh. But words of advice for Holy Taco please don't go political since either the libs or cons will tune out, thus losing 50% of the potential audience. We all need to be able to laugh about things equally both libs and cons together, especially during these difficult times.
March 10th, 2009 at 01:16 pm
A very good point!
March 10th, 2009 at 04:02 pm
What the hell is it about doing anything political that causes idiots like you to try and stop it. It's ok to make fun of fat people and midgets, but don't be getting political now. Carry on HT. We live in a free country.
March 10th, 2009 at 04:49 pm
Okay Pete how about a compromise; a liberal monkey and conservative monkey riding on bears on motorcycles on tight ropes to the death. Best political party wins!
March 10th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
All humor aside, the moral objection is that human life should be protected, and treated with dignity. The area of disagreement (I hope) is that stem-cell research advocates deny that the embryo is human. (Though maybe some are OK with slaughtering humans for scientific advancement? "Science over ideology").
If you're going to poke fun at the religious rights position, at least make fun of the real position and not a straw man.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Pastor Matt, You got that right. Embryos aren't human so they aren't to be protected like a human. Besides we make the rules. Human life is to be protected because society collectively decided that it's best for the sake of our society. We get to decide when some cells become human, not some declaration motivated by sacredness.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
It's not like women go out and have abortions because they're fun or they have nothing better to do on a Friday night. They do it because they are scared or uneducated or alone and they know that they can't raise a child by themselves. If they are going to have an abortion anyway, shouldn't SOME good come of it (i.e. the embryonic stem cells)?
The solution isn't banning ESCR, it's teaching women how to protect themselves from needing an abortion in the first place (and regardless what anyone thinks, it should come down to the woman protecting herself -- it's not the man that will have anything to "take care of" later). Regardless of your religious orientation, it has to be clear that people are having sex both outside of marriage and for reasons other than procreation. Little can be done to stop the sex, but much can be done to stop the pregnancies.
So as long as abortions are legal (and I think they should be and should remain so), why not have some good come of it, and save some lives? As long as women don't get compensated in ANY way for use of the embryo, it shouldn't even be up for debate.
March 10th, 2009 at 01:05 pm
With all due respect, the embryos that are used in Embryonic stem cell research are derived from the left over fertilized eggs that result from In vitro fertilisation (IVF). This debate has nothing to due with abortion other than the fact that both abortion and embryonic stem cells are the destruction of human life. Whether one agrees or not science has proven that life begins at conception. Yet this confusion only highlights that many people are unaware of what embryonic stem cell research really is.
March 10th, 2009 at 03:01 pm
IVF Embryos are ALIVE, yes, and they have the potential to divide into/become a human given time. But Alive doesn't mean much at the small cluster of cells point in development. There's no nervous system, no endocrine system...mostly no cellular differentiation at all (the definition of STEM cell).
The reason they plant a number of embryos during IVF is because women spontaneously miscarry in the early stages All The Time. Is purgatory peopled with naturally aborted embryo souls?
People who can't allow themselves to distinguish between an undifferentiated (yeah, alive) cluster of cells and a person have no business voting.
Choose reality.
March 10th, 2009 at 08:33 pm
There are also living human cells in the booger I just picked out of my nose... and it's a big one, bigger than most embryos used.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
If I understand things correctly. Abortion is legal in all 50 states. So there are thousands of discard embryos considered to be medical waste, correct? Would that be the source for embryonic stem cell research? Why not use the discarded embryos to give another person the chance to live.
March 10th, 2009 at 01:13 pm
I agree. At the risk of sounding callous, why let them be "wasted?" I understand moral inhibitions; I'm a Christian, and I like to think the value of life is something I have a SLIGHT grasp on. But at the same time, God presents humanity with opportunities, to either embrace or ignore. This looks like an opportunity to use something that has been provided, and even though it's unsettling, it is better to use the option than waste it.
March 10th, 2009 at 02:48 pm
Aha! Well there's your problem. You don't know what you're talking about. Abortion produces a dead fetus. An embryo is a microscopic cluster of cells that occurs way before you even know you're pregnant.
March 10th, 2009 at 07:00 pm
well said.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Embryonic stem cells come from people who have used science to try and have children because they can't conceive normally. Once they've had a child or two, the left over embryos are superfluous. The only way not to destroy them (one way or another) is for everyone to stop having sex to procreate and use these frozen embryos until we run out of them in a few hundred years.
There are alternatives for the religionists who find the whole idea of stem cell research abhorrent: Don't use the results. So when science finds a cure for cancer or diabetes or heart disease, they don't have to take advantage of the cure for themselves or their families, they can do the biblically correct thing and hope for a miracle.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
All you religious people obviously don't know whats going on. Stem cells cure people. Yes, they could possibly one day have grown into a human. But you'd be taking a life either way. And if you thought about it a little, would you want to be suffering with Parkinson's disease? No. You'd want a cure. From stem cells. God wants life? Then why not keep the lives we have rather than bring new ones into this hell hole?
March 10th, 2009 at 01:05 pm
You said, "But you'd be taking a life either way." No, you wouldn't. Do you honestly see no distinction between actually destroying a life versus a disease taking a life? As to the argument, "they'll be destroyed anyway," a consistent advocate of life opposes the creation of fertilized eggs for any other purpose than bringing them from pre-womb to post womb life.
Obviously, other laws already create a system where we have discarded embryonic humans "so," you say, "why not put them to use?"
Because, if we benefit financially, medically, and in other ways from the killing of innocent human life, we're even LESS inclined to protect it.
March 10th, 2009 at 01:21 pm
Very well said Pastor Matt.
March 10th, 2009 at 07:02 pm
And is every sperm sacred? Is menstruation murder? After all, that's human DNA in there that could, under the right circumstances, have become a human being.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:09 pm
A blasotcyst is not a life - get real! It's 50 frigging cells with no resemblance to human being. Besides who cares - all this crap about the sacredness of life. You don't really want a thinking person to believe that letting someone die because you've saved a blastocyst is reasonable? That's preverted!
The rest of the world doesn't give a shit about this christian dogma.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:26 pm
"The rest of the world doesn't give a shit about this christian dogma."
That's your opinion; it's not just Christians that support the right to life.
Besides, those meaningless 50 frigging cells? Yeah, you were them once. We all were. A zygote compromises everything that initially defines us as living beings.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:50 pm
But it ain't a human being. There's nothing sacred about it.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:54 pm
yeah? but I'm past that stage right now, but I wouldn't have noticed if someone had aborted me right then.
What difference does it make if we destroy some embryos? They don't know the difference. They aren't yet human beings.
March 10th, 2009 at 01:07 pm
First, don't generalize for all if us "religious" people. I consider myself a pretty devout Christian, and I don't believe that stem cell research is wrong, by any means. If God has placed the opportunity in front of us to solve some of our MANY problems, the solution should be embraced. That's not to condone abortion or anything... that's a totally different argument. But, in the event that there are ready stem cells that can be used for something productive, then the choice is rather simple.
Second, claiming that others "don't know what's going on" while you CLEARLY assume that you do is both an unfair argument and an easy way to look like an ass. Try to keep the slander down, slick.
March 10th, 2009 at 01:00 pm
Cholly What research are you referring to in regards to creationism/Intelligent design. Please list the scientific journals and peered reviewed papers that have been released. There is none - its all bogus - THERE IS NOT CONTROVERSY HERE - please move on. Oh and by the way the world is not flat, was not created in 6 days ( or 60, or 6000 years).
Yahweh is the god of war - you are all worshiping the planet mars
When you state you have done the research for both sides remember that in terms of evolution there are no sides - as of March 10,2009 there is only one working explanation for the diversity of life on this or any other planet. This does not mean that evolution is correct - but it is the only explanation born out of observation and testing and that has shown any accuracy at explaining past events and predicting future ones.
I have go so tired of politely allowing the the religous to state whatever the want without being checked....
March 10th, 2009 at 03:04 pm
This is great and you are a fine American! Keep up the good work!
March 10th, 2009 at 03:34 pm
If Americans would just pay attention to something other than their own navels once in a while, they'd notice that up here in Canada we've discovered a way of creating stem cells without embryos. It's a nice gesture that Obama overturned that ban, but sort of a bit too late for it to mean anything concrete.
March 10th, 2009 at 04:01 pm
the cells you are talking about are created with adult samples. adult dna is degraded, explaining problems with cloning etc. embryonic stem cells are still needed for research. they produce the best results.
March 10th, 2009 at 03:54 pm
There is no science in the bible, the age of modern science happened after the age of "invent fantasies to explain everything we don't understand, which is a lot because we live in the mthrfckng BRONZE AGE."
Mankind is going to keep progressing and the superstitious can keep regressing if they like: Go join the Amish and give up all modern technology, including the results of stem-cell research. Please. Go sequester yourselves in Alaska and live your lives according to "laws" created thousands of years ago to control the ignorant and fearful population. Or, enjoy the fruits of the modern age: electricity, indoor plumbing, penicillin and Advil™ and keep your religious beliefs where they belong: in your own private homes and churches.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:24 pm
I'd also advise you to keep your ridiculous rhetoric in the same place. Let's not play favorites.
March 11th, 2009 at 08:34 am
But a religion unlived is no religion at all. Isn't that what is most upsetting about those who profess, but do not walk like they speak? Belief should never be confined, if it truly is something cherished and believed to be truthful.
There's plenty of science in the Bible. Are not all these things we discuss going to be understood differently 50 years from now? So then what remains unchanged through the course of time are the principles that were the same yesterday as they are today. We just come up with clever names and deeper understandings.
When prophets hundreds of years earlier described metal dragons with fire in their bellies, we today call them tanks. And if you want to descredit that book of Revelation, perhaps you should also consult such works as Edward Case or Notre Damus who also saw more than what eyes perceive.
Don't put too much trust in human potential and intellect. We're wrong more often than we're right. It doesn't take but a turn of the head to see we move from one disaster to another. And we're all to blame just the same. There is something else happening, something elusive, something unseen, and something that can only be understood by pursuing it. Some have seen it and struggled to find the words to describe it.
Hokey religion? I don't think so. If you want one, there are many to choose from. But there's no ignoring the evidence of something more than what can be packaged and sold.
It's easy to choose an extreme, place its reasponsiblity on a group you dont' like, and say I'm against them. The things that make life fulfilling for any of us today are the same as those in the beginning of this race. The only thing different is the outer packaging.
March 11th, 2009 at 09:13 pm
From where I stand this was a discussion on stem cells, so how we always manage to stumble into the old 'religion vs science' debate again I don't know..... (sounds like little children argueing over whose toy is better than the others)
First off neither of you are right because until it has been proven beyond all measure of doubt that either one of you is right then sorry, by all means you are entitled to your opinions, but don't shove your ideas and beliefs down other peoples necks.
Apologies to all those whose religion clashes with this subject but i'm afraid nobody cares what you think. (This is not intended to be offensive). As long as society is progressing (or thinks it is) then anything that may be considered to make humans stronger, more superior and more advanced will always win over religion.
Why? Because we can f*kin well do what we like, regardless of the consequences, we have free will and will proceed to do what we think we are capable of. Whether that is climbing Mount Everest or using stem cell research on embryos.
Anyone is free to tell me i'm wrong, not really bothered.
March 11th, 2009 at 09:40 pm
correction- "using stem cell research WITH embryos" sorry............
March 10th, 2009 at 04:23 pm
"stem cells without embryos" the US has been doing that, genius. but more things can be done WITH embryonic stem cell research. so shut the hell up about your self-righteous country, canadians. nobody gives a rats ass about you guys, "the loft above the party" aka America Jr.
March 10th, 2009 at 08:22 pm
you are a MORON. I guess that's why we are not suffering half as much as you guys are right now. The loft above the 'party' -haha yeah you've got that right. I guess you guys have just partied a little too hard...sucks doesn't it?
March 11th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Who are you talking to? You sound like a complete joke. Don't give us Americans a bad rap just 'cause you're so ignorant. Canada should not be refered to as America Jr. You are a dumbass.
March 10th, 2009 at 04:40 pm
You can respect life without losing your mind over it.
What it boils down to; if it bothers you that much, then don't use the medical advancements to help yourself.
I know that seems hard-assed, but it is the only way to not be a hypocrite.
March 10th, 2009 at 05:20 pm
Why is it ok to meddle with "GOD'S" work by mixing up a baby in a test tube, but not using the discarded ones to HEAL people (Who should be healed by this GOD person who never comes through).
People seem to debate only the fact that we can't use stem cells from embryos, when these things are unnatural in the first place.
HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!
March 10th, 2009 at 06:30 pm
It's the "Discarding" you mention that is the issue Anonymous. Humans are not toilet paper, bubblegum wrappers, or bubble wrap, humans are not things which ought to be discarded.
The "natural" argument *is* (as you point out) a weak argument, as it's natural for my teeth to decay, but medical advancements produce toothpaste which can help.
The problem comes in disrespecting / trivializing / holding irreverence to human life.
As for "should God be healing these people" tangent- substantial scholarship has been written on the topic over centuries of time. That is not a new issue and has been (many think) reasonably and sufficiently dealt with.
Post new comment