What is Digg?67 Comments
- hawkspur, on 04/19/2009, -0/+27"They must use cells culled from fertility clinic embryos that otherwise would be thrown away."
Why wouldn't you study something that could save thousands of lives instead of just throwing it in the garbage? - inactive, on 04/19/2009, -6/+31Good. Abortion is a service that should definitely exist and stem cell research is a benefit that should definitely be used as well.
- rtlampwork, on 04/18/2009, -1/+24What a concept - Obama's doing that "leadership" thing by pointing it in a certain direction, and then letting the organization (NIH) DO IT's JOB. Amazing.
- YokohamaGaijin, on 04/19/2009, -4/+22So let me get this straight; an embryo, which isn't even implanted and is destined for a garbage can (not even a burial or a ceremony, just tossed into a biohazard bag) is afforded the rights and privileges of a fetus?
I can understand and even empathize (a little) with the right-to-life movement battling against abortion. That is a fetus that has a chance, if making it to full term, could be a person some day. But to extend that argument to discarded embryos is just plain asinine to me. How can they justify that? It isn't life, it is genetic material destined for an incinerator. By the basic tenets of this argument, it should be illegal for a woman to have a period and don't even get me started on the billions of sperm cells wasted every minute on internet porn. - inc595, on 04/19/2009, -2/+20Remember to use proper English so people understand what the ***** you are saying.
- datdamonfoo, on 04/19/2009, -2/+19Actually his mother did. She used her right to CHOOSE whether or not to abort, and she CHOSE not to. Amazing how that works, eh, jnisme?
- Danzaivar, on 04/19/2009, -4/+18Americans opposed to this stuff should realise that this research is being done in Europe anyway, just with US funding as well the research goes a lot faster. It's just a case of 'who do you want to benefit from this' rather than 'do you want this research to be done?'
- AndrewMoyer, on 04/19/2009, -5/+17Way to be a two-bit simpleton!
- KLowD9x, on 04/19/2009, -2/+14And you obviously have the intelligence of someone that should be kept around.
- asgardshill, on 04/19/2009, -4/+14(sigh) Well, at least we know now what Rush Limbaugh and the church lady bloggers will be using for show prep next week.
- KLowD9x, on 04/19/2009, -0/+8Scientific study used to cure serious disease = ignorance?
- mrmacky, on 04/19/2009, -2/+10[sarcasm]Becasue you shouldn't kill it in the first place![/sarcasm]
- mpn401, on 04/19/2009, -2/+9(facepalm)
- KLowD9x, on 04/19/2009, -1/+8Why would you oppose something that is so beneficial to the entire human populous?!
- SanjiWatsuki, on 04/19/2009, -0/+6Given how in Britain they are working on a cure for a common reason for blindness and expect it to be available in five to seven years, I'm happy to see stem cell research like this. There might be some amazing breakthroughs.
- Ragzouken, on 04/19/2009, -0/+6I think he was being ironic. Saying it is his job but the previous president didn't seem to think so.
- dicroce, on 04/19/2009, -0/+6You know, this is probably the first thing Obama has done that I actually like. Seems like a good compromise to me. Hooray for stem cells!
- Ragzouken, on 04/19/2009, -2/+8While I agree with this research, I think your argument is poor. If it really is unethical to conduct this research, you can't say it's alright because someone else is doing it as well.
- wtcross, on 04/19/2009, -1/+6Dude you are a douche. Why waste your time on Digg intentionally acting like an idiot?
- mikeknick, on 04/19/2009, -0/+5*fed
- inactive, on 04/19/2009, -0/+5I can't justify abortion, but since it's going to happen anyway we may as well use the stem cells.
- Suilenroc, on 04/19/2009, -0/+4Godwin's law?
- Danzaivar, on 04/19/2009, -2/+6I don't follow. Are you comparing jews to embryo's?
- gcnaddict, on 04/19/2009, -2/+6People who are saying it's unethical: um, how?
Assuming God, souls, etc. exist (I believe they do, anyway), the soul wouldn't be in the body of a fetus until the brain and heart begin working independently anyway. That's waaaaaaaaay past the point of stem cells.
Eight cells still splitting do not automatically imply the existence of a soul. Logically speaking, the growing baby is still nothing more than a limb until the brain and heart begin beating on their own. That's the point where you can consider the fetus to be independent from the parent body.
That and these are embryos which would otherwise be flushed.
That's what I believe, anyway. That's also why I believe abortion is fine until the point where brain/heart activity is detected. This is a viewpoint which is also shared by many doctors as well, simply because of the fact that it's the most logical viewpoint to take. Until the brain/heart turn on, the fetus is likely nothing more than an empty shell. - gcnaddict, on 04/19/2009, -0/+4"But since God, souls, etc. don't exist"
You know, a good number of us who support stem cell research also believe in a God. The worst thing you could do is to impose your belief that "God, souls, etc. don't exist" on the rest of us by stating it in such a way that you imply the rest of us are wrong. All you risk doing is alienating the vast population which happens to fall into the category of people you just rudely insulted.
This is what I hate about most atheists. Why can't you guys just let those of us in the center who want scientific advancement but still believe in the mere existence of God just live our lives without imposing on us your belief that he doesn't exist? There's no proof either way, and there likely won't be any proof either way, so please don't stuff your views down our throat. I even said "assuming God, souls, etc. exist," I didn't say that any of it definitely does, so your comment was entirely unnecessary.
I agree that stem cell research must be pursued on the mere basis that many lives can be saved from what's essentially nothing more than a limb in the embryonic stage. My only point was that once the embryo grows into a fetus and that fetus begins exhibiting signs of brain and heart function is when, if souls exist, a soul will likely be in that body. - Unexploded, on 04/19/2009, -2/+6glitchbitglitchbit: "All the republicans are saying is that our tax dollars should not be spent on something that is considered murder by half of America.. good cause or not."
Man, no matter what the topic, somebody always brings up Iraq. - DAVENP0RT, on 04/19/2009, -1/+5But since God, souls, etc. don't exist, stem cell research should be a priority and the "ethical," evangelical right needs to STFU. I'm pretty sure Jeebus will forgive a scientist that used stem cells to cure cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, cardiac failure, muscle damage, even ***** baldness. I mean, *****.
- magicrat405, on 04/19/2009, -0/+3How have you guys not caught on and embraced this guy yet? Go look at his other posts, you won't regret it!
- Suilenroc, on 04/19/2009, -1/+4Well, it sounds good on paper, TheTikiTony, but there's a few caveats to that approach. What if the doctor is strictly pro-life? What if the father is out of the picture, or has a grudge against the woman, or something else like that? It's not so easy.
- carpeclunes, on 04/19/2009, -0/+3*feet
- alep85, on 04/19/2009, -0/+3The only ignorance is people who believe that a fetus that is going to sit in a garbage can and never contribute to life anyways is more advantageous than using that fetus to help another person's life.
- carpeclunes, on 04/19/2009, -0/+3Syntaxgs is a genius.
- KLowD9x, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Oh, would you rather us use "magical stem cells" that come from nothing?
- glitchbit, on 04/19/2009, -2/+3republicans aren't standing in the way of any of that research as the headline would like to suggest (oddly the article doesn't completely go the same patch as the headline.
All the republicans are saying is that our tax dollars should not be spent on something that is considered murder by half of America.. good cause or not. It is more than a religious issue it is also an ethics issue, and most religious people are going to have Deontology type ehtics while people like yall are utilitarian.
Let me put it this way, let's say I have a solution that would without a doubt end world hunger but it required that everyone who could not grow produce to be killed. A deontology person would never even consider doing such a thing even if it meant just killing one person, because that single act in itself would be wrong. A utilitarian person would likely ask the question how many? and if that number is less than the number of people that would benefit then they would be all for it.
In my opinion both ethic styles need to be exercised to an extent. If I am running a business I will be more concerned with the body as whole than I would be a single person. If I am a community organizer or team leader for some sports related thing then I might be a deontology person instead, meaning I'd rather do right and be fair by the individual than to be concerned with the overall even if I am less effective. And subscribing to deontology does not automatically mean that you will be less effective in everything. The will be times where deontology decisions will be the same as utilitarian but obviously based on different reasoning. - gcnaddict, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1I don't believe in any religion. I simply believe that God exists and that the premise of souls exist on the basis that humans and other beings have just one consciousness per being despite having billions of braincells.
Don't use Darwin to disprove the existence of any deities. You're slandering the concept of evolution as a result of your recklessness.
Furthermore, don't assume that just because I said I believe in God that I believe in all of the moronic stories associated with him. All you're doing is promoting my earlier statement: "This is what I hate about most atheists. Why can't you guys just let those of us in the center who want scientific advancement but still believe in the mere existence of God just live our lives without imposing on us your belief that he doesn't exist?"
There is no proof in either direction regarding God; none whatsoever. I'm not talking about the various views of God which various religions on this planet have. I'm merely talking about the existence of a being outside our field of perception. - TSK05, on 04/19/2009, -1/+2I don't believe they'll be using 8 cell fetuses for this research. 8 stem cells seems kind of skimpy. I am perfectly pro-choice but I do just hate it when it's all "8 cells aren't a fetus" - well guess what, 8 cells aren't used for stem cell research either. There is also the crazy hypocrisy of killing a fetus carries the same punishment as first degree murder.. if it's not alive then how can you murder it, it's a complete double standard. /rant
- Danzaivar, on 04/19/2009, -3/+4I'm not saying that to justify it being done, I'm saying that America will only be losing out by not getting involved. No moral quandary there, just business.
If I wanted to justify doing it I'd use the old 'benefits outweigh the problems' argument. - gcnaddict, on 04/19/2009, -0/+1They will be using 8 cell *embryos* because they then encourage the cells to replicate outside the typical growth pattern of a growing embryo.
- nietzscheanx, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Let being dugg down be your lesson for understanding the relevance of what you say.
- TSK05, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1You may have me there, I haven't a clue about how stem cell research is conducted (which is why I am not against it) but that sounds plausible.
- inactive, on 04/20/2009, -1/+2jnisme, if you get a disease that ends up cured by stem cell research, stick to your guns and refuse the treatments.
- canchin, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1Problem is, embryonic stem cells have already been shown - by those countries and companies that have been researching the technology not held back by the medieval religious cult inquisition style of the Bush Regime - to not be the way of the future since embryonic stem cells can just as easily develop into cancer cells.
The research into newer technology of those countries and companies far more advanced, have shown that cord blood stem cells and even VSEL (Very Small Embryonic-Like) stem cells from adult blood are the wave of the future.
Since cord blood only requires the mother to donate the umbilical after there is a birth, even the cultists don't have a leg to stand on - although they didn't have a leg to stand on anyway.
Forget embryonic stem cells, the Obama Regime needs to push science forward to at least the same level as the UK, China and Thailand and bypass the embryonic stem cell stage - except perhaps as a niche research, just in case they can find something - and get totally involved in cord blood stem cells and VSEL stem cells...along with cryogenic stem cell preservation of an individuals own stem cells for use when that individual is older.
It's a brave new world, America should join it. - inactive, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Only the ones that are inside of teenagers. Teen parents sucks.
- mabsark, on 04/20/2009, -2/+2There is plenty of evidence that suggests that God does not exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that God does exist.
Do you belive that God created Woman from Mans rib?
http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4837860/Charles_D ...
***** the RIAA and the MPAA. -
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is