A sperm cell and an ovum are living reproductive cells, why do anti-abortionist use birth control? This was not created by the Lord. Spermicides kill sperm cells meant to be part of baby embryos. The pill prevents life from continuing! The Lord wants you to have as many as he will allow, throw away your birth control you are committing a sin.
Didn't your lord create science, and scientists, and stem cells....so isn't to ignore all the great knowlege He has given us selfish. If the great lord gave us the knowlege to cure disease why not use this ability to the fullest.
As we age, the number and quality of stem cells that circulate in our body gradually decrease, leaving our body more susceptible to injury and other age-related health challenges. StemTech Health Science's Stem Enhance is the alternative to the controversial stem cells we hear about in the news. Patented Product StemEnhance supports the natural release of stem cells to promote optimal healing and stem cell physiology.http://www.phyl247.biz 877-696-8581
You failed to mention that it was UMBILICAL STEM CELLS that gave her sight back. The ban in the US was only on embryonic stem cells, NOT umbilical or adult stem cells.
Sorry, the case wasn't closed after all... Posted by holy-joe-722 at 4:56 AM : Mar 11, 2009
We both are right! But I think I am closer to the truth than you are! Former Pres. Bush banned federal funding for all Stem Cell research but allowed private funding for limited Stem Cell research, the kind you are referring to, the watered down Stem Cell research, "UMBILICAL STEM CELLS" with strict rules, where many Scientist preferred not to go there at all. In the context of Government involvement and funding, I think I win this point.
Unfortunately, the question over when life begins will never be answered on earth. I believe it begins with conception, but others do not.
Posted by holy-joe-722 at 5:15 AM : Mar 11, 2009
I disagree, the question of when life begins has been answered on earth, legally in the United States life begins when a child is born and takes its first breath, that's when the child is legally recognized and becomes an official human, any human status you are trying to imply prior to birth is a personal or religious view, not an official legal view. A fetus does not have the same rights as a living, breathing human, a fetus can be aborted or destroyed without penalty, the same is not true with humans. Claiming a fetus at conception is the same as a human has been legally rejected.
Unfortunately, the question over when life begins will never be answered on earth. I believe it begins with conception, but others do not. (I would argue that it cannot begin BEFORE conception).
That being said, this will be another Roe v. Wade cases that will be in the courts, news, and textbooks for many years to come.
I would like to point out an interesting thought: Why do we subsidize green energy, reduction of greenhouse gasses, and enact other climate change laws? Because it's believed that they have an effect on the earth and it's survival. So, why don't we spend the money on Umbilical and Adult Stem Cell Research, which has proven again and again to yield positive results while embryonic stem cell research has only yielded dead ends?
Kind of like trying to fill a sieve with water and expecting it to fill up.
[ Check out this new story just Posted here at CBS! China like other nations interested in Stem Cell Research with an 8 year jump on the U.S. doing things like this!
Shaun Boyd of CBS4 Denver reports on a blind Colorado girl who went to China for experimental stem cell treatments which have radically improved her vision -- she's now taking driving lessons.
Case closed. Posted by cbsantispin ]
You failed to mention that it was UMBILICAL STEM CELLS that gave her sight back. The ban in the US was only on embryonic stem cells, NOT umbilical or adult stem cells.
Check out this new story just Posted here at CBS! China like other nations interested in Stem Cell Research with an 8 year jump on the U.S. doing things like this!
Shaun Boyd of CBS4 Denver reports on a blind Colorado girl who went to China for experimental stem cell treatments which have radically improved her vision -- she's now taking driving lessons.
In purely technical terms, I believe life begins when a human takes their first breath, not before! In purely practical terms I don't believe in abortions. Those who support abortions or perform abortions need to tune into God. The only credible people in regards to protecting "life" and not destroying "life" in my view are "Vegetarians", if you are a meat eater, life was destroyed and you are consuming that carcass. If you are "pro life" and confining your views to humans "only", there may be a little hypocrisy there, but still, human life begins at first breath! In fact, legally as recognized by our government human life begins at first breath, like someone pointed out, try and get a Social Security number for an unborn for a mother 8 months pregnant, it won't be issued! The real question on this issue, where the rubber meets the road is, does God consider an unborn a human, does God consider abortion murder? I don't think anyone can successfully answer that. Personally I think its a close call and I would not want to find out! But its very possible God may not consider it murder.
formru smcsgt: Just because a unborn baby doesn't yet resemble a baby doesn't mean that it isn't a baby! It is human life even if it's just a few cells! In fact I believe that it becomes human life the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg! From that point on it is a living organism and, therefore, an unformed baby. i refuse to call them anything other than what they are. They are not fetuses and they are not embryos. They are babies who just aren't formed yet!
Say what you want, but this is a slippery slope. Once the door is wide open for embryonic stem cell research, the next logical step is to harvest "high-quality specimens" from suitable donors.
Big news in the stem cell research world today was that a girl who gained her sight through stem cells is now taking driver's training in Colorado. What many people will fail to mention is that she received UMBILICAL cells, not embryonic cells. All the advances seem to be in adult and umbilical cell research with no progress in embryonic.
This law that was reversed did not restrict research on all stem cell research, only embryonic cell. Why do we need to pump money into something that is not yielding results. Wouldn't it be better spent on adult or umbilical stem cell research?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Sorry, the case wasn't closed after all...
Posted by holy-joe-722 at 4:56 AM : Mar 11, 2009
We both are right! But I think I am closer to the truth than you are! Former Pres. Bush banned federal funding for all Stem Cell research but allowed private funding for limited Stem Cell research, the kind you are referring to, the watered down Stem Cell research, "UMBILICAL STEM CELLS" with strict rules, where many Scientist preferred not to go there at all. In the context of Government involvement and funding, I think I win this point.
Posted by holy-joe-722 at 5:15 AM : Mar 11, 2009
I disagree, the question of when life begins has been answered on earth, legally in the United States life begins when a child is born and takes its first breath, that's when the child is legally recognized and becomes an official human, any human status you are trying to imply prior to birth is a personal or religious view, not an official legal view. A fetus does not have the same rights as a living, breathing human, a fetus can be aborted or destroyed without penalty, the same is not true with humans. Claiming a fetus at conception is the same as a human has been legally rejected.
That being said, this will be another Roe v. Wade cases that will be in the courts, news, and textbooks for many years to come.
I would like to point out an interesting thought: Why do we subsidize green energy, reduction of greenhouse gasses, and enact other climate change laws? Because it's believed that they have an effect on the earth and it's survival. So, why don't we spend the money on Umbilical and Adult Stem Cell Research, which has proven again and again to yield positive results while embryonic stem cell research has only yielded dead ends?
Kind of like trying to fill a sieve with water and expecting it to fill up.
Shaun Boyd of CBS4 Denver reports on a blind Colorado girl who went to China for experimental stem cell treatments which have radically improved her vision -- she's now taking driving lessons.
Case closed.
Posted by cbsantispin ]
You failed to mention that it was UMBILICAL STEM CELLS that gave her sight back. The ban in the US was only on embryonic stem cells, NOT umbilical or adult stem cells.
Sorry, the case wasn't closed after all...
Shaun Boyd of CBS4 Denver reports on a blind Colorado girl who went to China for experimental stem cell treatments which have radically improved her vision -- she's now taking driving lessons.
Case closed.
Big news in the stem cell research world today was that a girl who gained her sight through stem cells is now taking driver's training in Colorado. What many people will fail to mention is that she received UMBILICAL cells, not embryonic cells. All the advances seem to be in adult and umbilical cell research with no progress in embryonic.
This law that was reversed did not restrict research on all stem cell research, only embryonic cell. Why do we need to pump money into something that is not yielding results. Wouldn't it be better spent on adult or umbilical stem cell research?