What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
132 Comments
- Dreeon, on 03/09/2009, -2/+29It's just more fun that way.
That's right, digg me down for that one. - orlyfactor, on 03/09/2009, -1/+24Hell no - the more embryonic cells, the better, I'd say.
- getter1, on 03/09/2009, -4/+26dugg so people can realize what a hindrance religion can be when it decides that it wants to have a say on science.
- jtt123, on 03/09/2009, -1/+15you dont have to kill babys for stem cells
- Teh1337Pirate, on 03/09/2009, -3/+15Bring me a fetus! *cracks in half and slurps the insides* Yes!! I can feel me growing stronger!!!!
- rabidbob, on 03/09/2009, -0/+10Because they grow into people like you.
- rabidbob, on 03/09/2009, -1/+10Religion and morality have little to do with each other despite the protests of the practitioners of the former.
- drunkenoaf, on 03/09/2009, -0/+8Look, if people want to refuse treatments for themselves on moral grounds, good luck to them. I can respect that.
If people with "moral (i.e. religious) objections" want to refuse other people the treatment, they can get bent.
If these people take the treatment... then they somehow have to rationalise their hypocrisy. But at least they get to live/ be cured/ survive longer. - Crazyredivan, on 03/09/2009, -1/+9I've never understood how the government can step in and dictate the reproductive rights of its citizens.
- MyBacchanalia, on 03/09/2009, -1/+8"Taxpayer dollars should not aid the destruction of innocent human life"
Or should he say, innocent American Christian human life. Ohh!!! Double casse!
Is it not wildly hypocritical to be in favor of war, but deny stem cell research? What about the lives of young soldiers and civilians? Their lives aren't as pure and innocent as a possible-baby life? - Bulletbillx, on 03/09/2009, -0/+7Some people must not watch South Park.
- Teh1337Pirate, on 03/09/2009, -2/+9I would never digg down the killing of babies.
- cristinamk, on 03/09/2009, -0/+7 I would accept the benefits of research,
- Teh1337Pirate, on 03/09/2009, -1/+7They are loud, they smell, and here lately parents aren't allowed to discipline them like they should so they have become disrespectful to everyone and have no place on this earth.
- ricker2005, on 03/09/2009, -0/+6Linking to a site with an obvious agenda? Surely that will win over the other side of the debate.
- solecize, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5Life is based mental awareness- if it is ok to "Un-plug" brain-dead invalids then you can come to grips with destroying a fertilized egg.
However if you worry about embryonic stem cell research and are pro life you might want to really review what pro-life means- like not bombing abortion clinics, or upholding the death penalty, supporting war, eating meat, weeding the lawn, etc. etc. - thinboyslim, on 03/09/2009, -2/+7God-schmod, I want my monkey man!
- TheUngod, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5And how much money is spent on cures for diseases before a cure is found? How many failed attempts are made? Should we stop research on AIDS and cancer because we haven't found a cure yet, and all the money is being "wasted?" If you don't spend money on it now there is a 0% chance of finding a cure for anything. Would you prefer that?
- ricker2005, on 03/09/2009, -3/+8Fail for bring up Nazis.
- vertigo32, on 03/09/2009, -4/+9Flour, water, and yeast aren't bread. But if you just mix them together, you still don't have bread. Human life begins when a baby is born.
Now, I don't have a problem with someone assigning their own value to that egg / sperm, zygote, embryo, or fetus prior to it becoming a baby. You can even personally assign it the value of a full human life. There are plenty of people who value the life of their cat or dog more than they value the lives of other people and that's their business. Those are your own personal values and, as long as you stay within the law, your own business.
Just don't try to tell me or my wife what is right to do with our own bodies. If we want to use a simple medical procedure to have a baby, it's nobody's business but our own. - charters14, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5If a collection of cells has to die so we can combat disease, so be it. We've done worse.
- Harabeck, on 03/09/2009, -1/+6Uhh no. The stem cells from other sources have more limited uses.
- Stavrosian, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5Better solution is just to tell the people who oppose it that nobody in the 21st century cares what they think, and they should all just shut up and whine in private while the rest of us get on with living in the real world.
It's possible that some may not consider my solution objective. - twiztidsinz, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4Killing of innocent babies is WRONG!
unless you eat them after. - jhbarr, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3And early radiation studies caused the Curie's to die from cancer. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have created the fields of nuclear medicine and radiology.
- sakipooh, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3I can't wait until you can get a stem cell shake as an energy Drink! ..they should call it 'Baby BOOST!'
- rossisdead, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3"Every person alive now was once an embryo"
That's because people hate tumors so much that they never give them a chance to mature and grow into an adult in 15-20 years. - thesonofdarwin, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3I suggest you take a look at where most of the embryonic stem cells come from. They are left overs from IVF that are either going to be disposed of or kept on ice indefinitely. Logically, they are not going to develop into a human any more than a sperm on a tissue or a skin cell is. You can leave that fertilized egg sitting on that petri dish until the cows [or Jesus] come home, but it'll never develop into a human before it dies.
- Eqxy, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3I'm not an expert on stem cell research, nor do I have even a mediocre understanding of it. What I find funny about this article is that it cites opinions of a politician and a priest on stem cell research. Seems like these opinions would be about as beneficial as going to McDonald's for brain surgery. Why don't we actually ask experts in the research field who have made this their life's work about what's happening, instead of listening to loud mouthed people with uninformed opinions?
- SeekerDarksteel, on 03/09/2009, -4/+7"NOW, about "ethics"... why is it ok with some, for fertility clinics to create embryos for a potential 5% use, all others to be destroyed, and it's not OK to use these for the benefit of human life?"
The people who oppose embryonic stem cell research also oppose fertility clinics doing exactly that.
"Why is it OK to flush egg cells down the toilet in a tampon, and/or jism to be wrapped in a paper towel and thrown away, and it' NOT ok to use these waste products to better human life and take the financial strain off the healthcare system? Shouldn't masturbation be illegal? Shouldn't women being fertile when not actively having babies, be illegal- in other words, forced sterilization? They're destroying life every time the have their period, right?"
Strawman. People are opposed to the destruction of a _fertilized egg_ because they believe that human life begins at conception. What unfertilized eggs and sperm have to do with anything I have no idea.
"Along the same lines, if truly "immoral", shouldn't transplants be illegal and immoral?"
There is a difference between deliberately creating a life for the purpose of destroying it and transplanting the organs of a life that, for purely accidental reasons, will not survive or is already dead.
"I have an idea, how about keeping your religion off my body, in other words, REALIZE that FREEDOM OF RELIGION is a founding part of this country, and keep thy religion to thyself?"
God I am tired of this strawman popping up every abortion/embryonic stem cell debate when it's been thoroughly smacked down every single time. The debate is NOT a religious one. One side may be motivated by religious beliefs, but that alone does not invalidate their claim that human life begins at conception. IF you believe that human life begins at conception, then it is completely valid to oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell research. And that is not a question of freedom of religion. We have laws against murder because it infringes on the victim's right to life. Clearly we all agree that at a certain point of development a human being gains the protection of law. It just so happens that a large number of people believe that this occurs at an arbitrary point in the pregnancy. But if a majority of Americans supported the choice of a parent to kill children under the age of, let's say, 5, would you be quiet and say "Well, I _believe_ that life begins at the start of the third trimester, but that's just my belief. And I can't go around imposing my _beliefs_ on other people"
*Prepares to be buried by the brigade of mindless drones who can't be bothered with dealing with actual rational opposition to their _beliefs_* - Crazyredivan, on 03/09/2009, -1/+4I never said I hate children, but I am tired of only hearing arguments about when life starts, rather than hearing people defending a person's reproductive rights. Stem cells are just that: cells. It's not a squishy baby that, for some reason, has more people fighting for it than an adult woman does, even in the far-out cases like incestuous rape and when the woman's life is in danger because of the pregnancy.
(and, yes, I realize you do not need to be an adult to conceive) - drunkenoaf, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3Hmm. If it were that simple, don't you think that's what everyone would be doing?
It's a dangerous slope to start giving concessions to irrational anti-science lobby groups like fundamentalist religious groups.
These bastards want to deny teaching of basic scientific principles like evolution in school. Don't make their power any greater. - ricker2005, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3Oh I didn't get around to this before but your assertion that all advancement in stem cell research is derived from adult stem cells is *****. You might want to do a little research about embryonic stem cells curing paralysis in mice and the resulting Phase I trial that's set to begin soon in humans.
- drunkenoaf, on 03/09/2009, -1/+4Why do you think the methods are horrific? I want to know how you came to that conclusion.
Have you studied them and come to a learned conclusion? Or did someone tell you to have that opinion? - rossisdead, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3What about the rights of tumors? I'm sure that, given the chance, tumors could grow into productive citizens.
- PeeEqualsNP, on 03/09/2009, -2/+5You really do need to understand the difference between an egg/sperm and a fertilized egg. It's huge difference. That's like trying to compare sugar and a cake when the equality isn't there because sugar is a subcomponent of the cake. The egg is a subcomponent of the embryo.
So you're ethics argument flawed at best.
Second, "how about keeping your religion off my body". It really has little to do with religion. If the embryo is human life, abortion and embryonic research would be ending that human life. This is a simple concept. So it is really just an argument of when does life begin. You find fault in the religious conservative for blindly saying "It's at conception". Yet they find fault with you for blindly saying "Roe v Wade says its ok" or "It's not human yet". Why not let modern science decide and consider the fact that science, especially the study of pre-natal development has come a LONG way since the 70's, when Roe v Wade. So maybe we all need to do a little research. Is an embryo human life? What properties constitute human life? When do these properties emerge in prenatal development? These types of questions shouldn't be answered by pro-lifers or pro-choicers, but independent scientists. So what kind of scientific evidence exists out there currently?
Heart beat by 5th week, brain activity by 6th week (citation needed), movement (by-product of brain functionality) by 8th week
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#The_human_embr ...
can bend fingers at 9 weeks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
I'd say it looks like human life at about 6-8 weeks. But that's just my opinion. - tava0002, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3Depends on who the adults were.
- zoeific, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2Of course I wouldn't refuse. The anti-research position has always struck me as dogmatic gibberish. Why should we morally equate embryos with people? Everything I value about human nature relates to our capacity for conscious experience: understanding and thought, volition, memory, imagination, emotions and feelings, sensory perception, and so on. I don’t see how a research opponent could back in plausible terms the idea of a 5-day-old embryo having any of that. The preformation hypothesis was refuted centuries ago. Social conservatives need to understand that some of their opinions on morality are just too peculiar to be foisted on a secular pluralistic government.
- Crazyredivan, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2The rights of all lumps of cells should be protected!
- sc4s2cg, on 03/09/2009, -1/+3I don't want to hinder science, I love science in all it's forms.
I just don't like the way some science is applied. Like embryonic stem cells. I don't mind those new stem cells, the ones made from skin or a plethora of other cells. - rossisdead, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2@jslondon85: Irregardless, your meta argument serves no purpose.
- zoeific, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2"By that definition, though -- as soon as you're in a car accident and in a coma, I can kill you and harvest your organs, right?"
Wrong. My volition doesn't go away until the brain structures encoding them have gone away. A reversible coma leaves a patient with memory and personality.
"because in the state you're in, you have none of those things, so it's okay to kill you."
No. We awaken from sleep with almost the same set of preferences with which we went to bed. A moral agent has to take that into account.
"Arguably a newborn fails to show most of those qualities. What does that mean to you?"
Our knowledge of newborn consciousness is too incomplete, so better play it safe. Plus, the baby is manifestly a separate entity from the mother. No one has ever observed the fusion of egg and sperm in its natural environment, but everyone can tell when a birth has occurred, thus legally defining birth as the beginning of personhood is a matter of practicality. Totally off-topic, BTW. Embryonic stem cells are taken only from embryos in the blastocyst stage, since the cells begin to lose their pluripotency afterwards. - vertigo32, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2I personally see no distinction between using a fetus from a miscarriage as opposed to using a fetus from abortion. Objectively, both are nothing more than medical waste.
Some people bury placentas or miscarried fetuses and feel they deserve the same / a portion of the dignitiy of being human. In my eyes, there is nothing wrong with that. Other people send them to be incinerated as waste. I don't think there is anyting wrong with that either. It's a matter of personal choice, and it's not someone else's business if I bury a placenta, have it banked / frozen, or have it destroyed as medical waste.
Now, when it comes to organ transplants or bodies donated to science, we don't normally make a distinction between how that person died. Other than practical purposes (don't harvest diseased / poisoned organs) a dead person is a dead person. Even with children, there is no distinction - if a child dies, regardless of how they die, their bodies can be used to help others. Most places, regardless of how a child dies, an autopsy is done and information is collected - information that usually is used for some form of research.
To treat a fetus differently than a baby or child creates another arbitrary distinction. - DivisibleByZero, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2Well, it would be more accurate to say that religion contains ethics, plus a little more. When we talk about freedom of religion, we're talking about the non-ethics parts of religion. Most ethics are things we can all agree to. If you killed an adult, you wouldn't be able to claim that "freedom of ethics" allowed you to do it.
- Mortira, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2I'm against fertility clinics. Nature took you out of the gene pool, so stay out! I don't think it's right to use/make embryos for reproduction or for science. But if embryos from abortion can help save lives, why not use them?
- RobotBuddha, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2Morality codified, with an intent to be unchanging, really doesn't have any place in discussing issues their creators could have nver dreamed of. I don't care what someone who doesn't even know what a gene is thinks of genetic modifications for example.
- rossisdead, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2"Some people have artificial hearts (hence, no heartbeat), and are still considered "alive." What a ridiculous way of defining life. And no, in the US, we don't define death as being when the heart stops. Your information is incorrect."
Going by this logic, tumors are still considered alive regardless of the lack of heartbeat.
"It's easy to tell which are humans or not. If you studied biology, you'd learn that when a sperm and egg merge, they form the earliest stage of a human."
No, when a sperm and an egg merge, they form a cell. One cell. Sometimes these cells don't even turn into humans because of DNA errors. - Crazyredivan, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2Thanks for the Bio 101 refresher....how is a dividing cell different from any other dividing cell? Maybe the mommy tumor had big plans for the baby tumor until chemo killed it.
- axm9505, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2I REFUSE!
- Crazyredivan, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2"..but such rights are irrelevant when it comes to someone's right to live without being murdered by someone else."
So you're going for the ole' Eye for an Eye defense? How does a lump of cells override an actual, breathing, conscious human being?
Besides that, using your example, if murdering a "1 month old is illegal, why murdering a child 2 months younger is legal"...it is not. There are bans on third trimester abortions. (Which, following your 1 month-2 months logic, would make the fetus 8 months into gestation and, therefore, in the 3rd trimester)
Can you also explain how the same people that are anti-abortion and anti-women's reproductive rights are ok with capital punishment and sending massive amounts of troops to their deaths? Or are ok with not strengthening gun laws to make it more difficult for the wrong kind of people to get a hold of weapons? How do you justify that discrepancy? -
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is