 Bat_Girl
Female, 13-17, Australia
 319 Posts
|
Sunday, April 05, 2009 6:33:07 AM
are they adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells? |
|
 Sampson623
Male, 13-17, Europe
265 Posts
|
Monday, February 16, 2009 12:37:30 PM
wow what next cancer? |
|
 je_scream
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
766 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:55:22 PM
Every black person in America who had slaves here have European ancestry...just to answer your question. Don't know if you was being sarcastic or not. |
|
 cryswhatever
Female, 13-17, Western US
123 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:23:46 PM
why isnt everybody freaking out????????? OMG |
|
 Slotherder
Male, 18-29, Western US
47 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:31:57 PM
Baalthazaq- true, I oversimplified a bit. I had thought of that and forgot to mention it while typing. So they're OK with multiples if people can not afford singlular embryo implants, so long as none are aborted and the people who opted for the more affordable process now deal with the chances of getting the expenses of additional children. Seems like a pretty big catch 22 there, since even with the 8-12 implant method, it's only about a 30% success rate. |
|
 outfire
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
512 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:43:03 PM
Amazing what they can do with stem cells. |
|
 LazyMe484
Male, 18-29, Canada
4881 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:40:37 PM
Once again, Baalthazaq disagrees with everyone. I doubt even he knows what side he's on. |
|
 Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
2594 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:06:24 PM
Sloth: Not quite.
You can have more. If some fail, they fail.
If however all take, they are against aborting some of the takers. |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
2594 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:03:28 PM
OH YEAH?! TAKE THIS AQAUSIXIO!I repeat:
They used adult stem cells.
[The conservatives] didn't try to stop it.
[The Conservatives] were the ones pushing for adult stem cell research. |
|
 Aqausixio
Female, 18-29, Australia
1433 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:16:49 AM
TAKE THAT CONSERVATIVES! |
|
 deeplick
Male, 18-29, Western US
27 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:56:48 AM
je_scream That is because if you read the full article it says "The mutation is known as CCR5 delta32 and is found in 1 percent to 3 percent of white populations of European descent."And lets face it, how many black people are of European descent? |
|
 silversoul46
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
189 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:56:11 AM
This is a good thing right? why hasn't been on the news like crazy? |
|
 fr0d0lives
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
619 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:58:21 AM
holy crudddddddd!!!
this is huge!
|
|
 Boredx12
Female, 13-17, Europe
1661 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:34:39 AM
Yay!
Although apparently AIDS in humans began after some drattards slept with apes...
And it's the apes I feel sory for in all this. |
|
je_scream
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
766 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 7:53:55 AM
Eww, is that a big picture of Balut? how gauche! |
|
je_scream
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
766 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 7:52:57 AM
And of course it supposedly only works for 'Caucasians' I swear I hate when they lie. Damn the American Medical Association. If I seem a little hostile it's because I watched 'Sicko' last night, kinda got to me. |
|
Slotherder
Male, 18-29, Western US
47 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 7:33:31 AM
Too late, a mod already did. That's what made me think about the question. |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
2691 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:48:48 AM
These were apparently Adult stem cells, So I doubt any one pro-life will get up in arms over this treatment. |
|
Slotherder
Male, 18-29, Western US
47 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:37:07 AM
So, basically it boils down to a pro-life position on in vitro being: 'If you can afford to have the process done as many times as it takes to establish a successful pregnancy using a single gamete at a time, go for it. If you can't afford it, you're S.O.L.'? Or are they against the in vitro process completely? |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
2594 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:12:49 AM
Generally speaking prolifers are against fertility treatments that have some form of in-built abortion expectation, specifically "shotgunning". I wouldn't know quite how much the pro-life movement focuses on this, I'm not particularly pro life, but I've heard of several arguments from prolifers against the practice. Kaizer:
1) Why make that distinction?
2) A newborn does not have the potential in it's current physical state to match the intellect of a pig. Let me simplify it. I want to know why a pig is inferior to a newborn. I.e. Why it should be given more/less rights. As far as I can see that will always come down to potential. Not the same potential that any given egg may become fertilized (0.4%) or sperm (0.0000000001%), but a realistic potential (70%) of becoming a full grown adult. These are not the same thing. |
|
Slotherder
Male, 18-29, Western US
47 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:31:57 AM
Out of curiosity (I've never heard an anti-stemcell research/pro-lifer's point of view on this): How do you all feel about fertility clinics? Typically in the in vitro process, 8-12 eggs are fertilized and implanted to increse the chances of success, and when a pregnancy is successfully established, any extra fertilized gametes (including those of multiple pregnancies) are often intentionally aborted. Maybe I've been ignorant in not hearing any positions on it, but I try pretty damned hard not to be ignorant, so I find it odd that I never hear it come up in political/theological discussions and debates. One of the reasons I ask is because the statistics on how much fetal tissue is simply thrown away each and every year are staggering. |
|
 Kaizer250
Male, 18-29, Western US
764 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:27:26 AM
Physical potential, yes. I do think that it should looked at through what potential its current physical state gives it. Mental development is quite different, as I see it, from physical development. The former's potential exists solely in it's current state, whilst the latter's is based on an idea of what potential it's physical state might eventually have. That's the line of separation for me; what physical potential it currently has, versus what physical potential it has the potential to have. |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
2594 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:17:49 AM
It's pretty much me... I can't write short messages. |
|
 steve41high
Male, 18-29, Europe
674 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:14:38 AM
whats with all the essays? |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
2594 Posts
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:57:12 AM
Perhaps true of a two year old, but not true of a newborn. A newborn's brain is still developing substantially when it is born. A human, in theory, should be born after 1 year, not 9 months, however as humans decided standing up was a good idea, we now give birth earlier in order for our women to survive the birthing process. However, consider this summary of your latest explanation: Are you suggesting that it's unfair to judge something on its current intelligence, when what we should be looking at is its potential? |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
