[olePigeon]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=46546

Absolutely incredible. I can't wait for human trials here in the States and most of Europe.

The report said motor activity was noticed on day 7, and the woman was able to maintain an upright position on day 13. Fifteen days after surgery, she began to elevate both lower legs about one centimeter.

The study's abstract says not only did the patient regain feeling, but 41 days after stem cell transplantation, testing "also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured cite" and below it.

[FulcrumPilot]

Them stem cells are insane!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by FulcrumPilot

Them stem cells are insane!

So are the dumbass Reps and Dems who are voting down the Christopher Reeves Act.

[James L]

Yup. Stem cell research is probably going to be the biggest tool in curing long term disease we have ever had. it is quite obvious to me that most of the people who are against it are not suffering from spinal cord injury, parkinson's disease, etc,

['"}{/quote}]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

So are the dumbass Reps and Dems who are voting down the Christopher Reeves Act.

I think politicians in general are pretty insane. Ugh.

[Wiskedjak]

Stem cells are obviously evil

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

So are the dumbass Reps and Dems who are voting down the Christopher Reeves Act.

They used stem cells from an umbilical cord. The Chris Reeves act deals with embryonic stem cell research, hence the drama.

[Eug Wanker]

What is World Net Daily?

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Stem cells are obviously evil

They're a spawn of Satan.

[sminch]

a new zealand woman went to china for a stam cell transplant to her brain (!) a few months ago. interesting stuff.

The Rotorua woman, who suffers from incurable motor neurone disease, appeared on television last night communicating with her voice rather than the talking machine she has used since the disease severely impaired her speech.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...ectID=10116758

sminch

[Brass]

Originally Posted by James L

Yup. Stem cell research is probably going to be the biggest tool in curing long term disease we have ever had. it is quite obvious to me that most of the people who are against it are not suffering from spinal cord injury, parkinson's disease, etc,

I don't think anybody is actually against stem cell research. Not that I've ever heard of, anyhow.

The controversy comes on where and how researchers obtain stem cells.

There are many, many sources of stem cells. Some of the easiest ways to get stem cells for research are also regarded as unethical by many people.

Since there are other ways to get stem cells that people generally do not regard as unethical, then it would be arguably better to use those other "unethical" ways, and avoid all the controversy.

That's where the disagreement comes in.

It has nothing to do with people being against stem cell research.

[JoshuaZ]

There are people against them, in various ways. Like using them to grow organs, or where they come from. A lot of people believe that they`ll be used to grow clones that will be harvested for organs. I`m cool with that, I could always use a spare lung.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=46546

Absolutely incredible.

Praise the Lord, it's a miracle!

[paul w]

If only they coulda used teh stem cells for teh Schiavo...

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by paul w

If only they coulda used teh stem cells for teh Schiavo...

Her brain was mush a long time ago. Nothing they could have done for it.

[Salty]

Yah, too bad they used stem cells from an umbilical chord. Everyone knows the only good stem cells you can get are from killing babies! The research is better the more babies you kill!

[dillerX]

Originally Posted by Salty

Yah, too bad they used stem cells from an umbilical chord. Everyone knows the only good stem cells you can get are from killing babies! The research is better the more babies you kill!

You are the biggest ****ing moron.

Umbilical cord cells are considered "adult stem cells," in contrast to embryonic stem cells, which have raised ethical concerns because a human embryo must be destroyed in order to harvest them.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by dillerX

You are the biggest ****ing moron.

Wow way to make my point for me! Everyone always complains about the fact that they're not allowed to murder unborn people for their research. Well turns out you can get great results without having to rob anyone of the chance of life!

[paul w]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Her brain was mush a long time ago. Nothing they could have done for it.

You obviously don't have faith in teh miracle of science. Nor can you read sarcasm.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by paul w

You obviously don't have faith in teh miracle of science. Nor can you read sarcasm.

I thought faith and science were supposed to be separate...

[James L]

Originally Posted by Brass

I don't think anybody is actually against stem cell research. Not that I've ever heard of, anyhow.

The controversy comes on where and how researchers obtain stem cells.

There are many, many sources of stem cells. Some of the easiest ways to get stem cells for research are also regarded as unethical by many people.

Since there are other ways to get stem cells that people generally do not regard as unethical, then it would be arguably better to use those other "unethical" ways, and avoid all the controversy.

That's where the disagreement comes in.

It has nothing to do with people being against stem cell research.

You would be surprised.

I know the largest argument is adult vs. embryonic stem cell use, but there are people out there who are simply against the concept.

Silly really.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Salty

Everyone always complains about the fact that they're not allowed to murder unborn people for their research.

You can't murder an unborn "person".

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Brass

There are many, many sources of stem cells. Some of the easiest ways to get stem cells for research are also regarded as unethical by many people.

Since there are other ways to get stem cells that people generally do not regard as unethical, then it would be arguably better to use those other "unethical" ways, and avoid all the controversy.

Quoted for emphasis.

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Salty

I thought faith and science were supposed to be separate...

...hmmmmm...

... searching a matter out is the glory of man...
... keeping a matter hidden is the glory of kings...


laeth

[sminch]

Everyone always complains about the fact that they're not allowed to murder unborn people for their research.

i'd like to think that you're taking the piss, but i've read enough of your posts to have serious doubts...

sminch

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Warung

You can't murder an unborn "person".

how so?

laeth

[Warung]

Originally Posted by isao bered

how so?

laeth

Why would it be?

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Warung

Why would it be?

hypothetical

a woman eight months into her pregnancy is attacked. during the attack the aggressor takes specific action that results in the termination of the fetus. now we all know that there is a good chance that baby born premature at 8 months will live to survive. aside from whatever assault charges there are against the woman should there be additional charges regarding the unborn child she was carrying? if so, what? if not, why?

as for the fetal stem cells, i have difficulty in seeing how we demonstrate we value the continuation of life by cheapening the beginnings of life. part of the reason i am uncomfortable with abortion being used merely as contraception (as someone else so succintly mentioned earlier in the thread).

^^edit^^ the contraception comment was probably elsewhere in the forum recently.

be well.

laeth

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Warung

You can't murder an unborn "person".

Read about half way down Starting where it says 720 ILCS 5/9‑1.2

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Warung

You can't murder an unborn "person".

So wait... being in a woman's vagina makes you not a person? Hmmm, so by rights, some woman should just sleep with you and while you're partially inside shoot you. Makes just as much sense as you pretending that a living child who is still inside it's mother is not a person. Simply because you've decided to draw an arbitrary line on when life has value, doesn't mean you're right.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by isao bered

aside from whatever assault charges there are against the woman should there be additional charges regarding the unborn child she was carrying?

If you ask me, - no. But at any rate, the charges shouldn't be "murder", but involuntary manslaughter.

Originally Posted by isao bered

if not, why?

Because "murder" connotates the premeditated intentional killing of a person.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Salty

So wait... being in a woman's vagina makes you not a person?

Yes, it does. A very happy person as a matter of fact.

Originally Posted by Salty

Simply because you've decided to draw an arbitrary line on when life has value, doesn't mean you're right.

And the same goes for you.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Read about half way down Starting where it says 720 ILCS 5/9‑1.2

Okay, let me rephrase that then.

It isn't murder, if the life of a fetus is terminated in the context of an abortion.

(e) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1414.)

[nredman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Stem cells are obviously evil

yes, they are part of the axis of evil

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Salty

So wait... being in a woman's vagina makes you not a person?

It's uterus, not vagina.

[von Wrangell]

Well, I read the article.

3 points:

1. A few of the methods they used in the culture and isolation of the stem cells are derived from embryonic stem cell research.

2. They point out the benefits of using younger stem cells.

3. The way they point it out is for one reason only. Give a strong indication of why ESCs should be used.

Please, for the love of Jeebus, adopt one of the many hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos looking for a good home. I do hear that George is having Jenna and Barbara carry a couple of these little critters around in their wombs to term so THEY'RE doing their part! Why not do yours?

THANKS!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Well, I read the article.

3 points:

1. A few of the methods they used in the culture and isolation of the stem cells are derived from embryonic stem cell research.

2. They point out the benefits of using younger stem cells.

3. The way they point it out is for one reason only. Give a strong indication of why ESCs should be used.

Ahhh... but the kicker is that they had success with UCBSC and not ESC. Where are the success stories of people who have been paralyzed for 19 years and had success with ESC?

We barely know what can be accomplished with UCBSC and yet we still feel the need to use ESC. Why is that? Political I think. Certain groups feel the need to belittle human life and use it for research.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Please, for the love of Jeebus, adopt one of the many hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos looking for a good home. I do hear that George is having Jenna and Barbara carry a couple of these little critters around in their wombs to term so THEY'RE doing their part! Why not do yours?

THANKS!

Memebers of my Church are running about 50/50 adoption vs. having their own. We are doing our part. Now if we could get the atheists to have respect for human life we'd get much further.

[Kevin]

I think politicians in general are pretty insane. Ugh.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

You can't murder an unborn "person".

You can murder any being living and growing.

If a gal is pregnant, and someone purposely does something to her in the purpose of killing said growing, living baby, then yes it is murder.

Saying otherwise is just sugar-coating something to justify murder.

That is all.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If a gal is pregnant, and someone purposely does something to her in the purpose of killing said growing, living baby, then yes it is murder.

If a person kills a pregnant woman without knowing that she is carrying a feutus/baby, then it is not murder.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Salty

So wait... being in a woman's vagina makes you not a person? Hmmm, so by rights, some woman should just sleep with you and while you're partially inside shoot you. Makes just as much sense as you pretending that a living child who is still inside it's mother is not a person. Simply because you've decided to draw an arbitrary line on when life has value, doesn't mean you're right.

The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Ahhh... but the kicker is that they had success with UCBSC and not ESC. Where are the success stories of people who have been paralyzed for 19 years and had success with ESC?

We barely know what can be accomplished with UCBSC and yet we still feel the need to use ESC. Why is that? Political I think. Certain groups feel the need to belittle human life and use it for research.

Why that is? Because we who actually work in this environment every day know the different potential BMSC, UCSC and ESC have. You don't. So please, let us do the science while you continue to use what you consider Christian ethics. No one is forcing you (or your wife) to donate to ESC research. You on the other hand is part of a group that is forcing others to not be able to help. But even that won't stop the fact that you will most likely one day benefit from ESC research. Just like this woman did. And that is something you completely ignore. Her progress is very much linked to ESC research. Because like I said, several of the steps, techniques, and markers they used have come from ESC research.

[dav]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You can murder any being living and growing.

If a gal is pregnant, and someone purposely does something to her in the purpose of killing said growing, living baby, then yes it is murder.

Saying otherwise is just sugar-coating something to justify murder.

That is all.

what about lesser crimes than murder? a pregnant women smoking, taking drugs or medicine which could impair the development of the unborn child. or not taking vitamins/eating healthy/living a healthy lifestyle? would that be some sort of unborn child abuse?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

No one is forcing you (or your wife) to donate to ESC research. You on the other hand is part of a group that is forcing others to not be able to help. But even that won't stop the fact that you will most likely one day benefit from ESC research. Just like this woman did. And that is something you completely ignore. Her progress is very much linked to ESC research. Because like I said, several of the steps, techniques, and markers they used have come from ESC research.

Ahhh, but they want me to. They want federal funding for ESC research and that would force me to pay for something I find revolting. Would you want to pay for the salary of a evangelical pastor's salary?

If I had to choose between death or life due to research from the killing of a child I'd choose death. No one should die for "research". Especially when other avenues that have show results (where as ESC haven't) aren't explored throughly.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dav

what about lesser crimes than murder? a pregnant women smoking, taking drugs or medicine which could impair the development of the unborn child. or not taking vitamins/eating healthy/living a healthy lifestyle? would that be some sort of unborn child abuse?

Yes.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Ahhh, but they want me to. They want federal funding for ESC research and that would force me to pay for something I find revolting. Would you want to pay for the salary of a evangelical pastor's salary?

That I agree with. Luckily that isn't the case where I work.

If I had to choose between death or life due to research from the killing of a child I'd choose death. No one should die for "research". Especially when other avenues that have show results (where as ESC haven't) aren't explored throughly.

1. I don't kill children.
2. Every single "avenue" is explored as much as possible. You don't know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Ahhh, but they want me to. They want federal funding for ESC research and that would force me to pay for something I find revolting. Would you want to pay for the salary of a evangelical pastor's salary?

If I had to choose between death or life due to research from the killing of a child I'd choose death. No one should die for "research". Especially when other avenues that have show results (where as ESC haven't) aren't explored throughly.

I'm sure that there's lots of programs your federal tax dollars are going towards that you would find revolting. You just don't know about them.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Railroader

If I had to choose between death or life due to research from the killing of a child I'd choose death.

No human being or feotus is killed for science.

Originally Posted by Railroader

No one should die for "research".

Except, of course, life forms "lower" than humans.