stem cell research

[Angryburrito]

 

 

I'm pretty sure Jesus had no stance on something he didn't know exsisted. That being stem cells, and the research of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Jesus doesn't exist...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you're pretty ignorant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm ignorant for not believing in a fictional story? :shame:

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Jesus had no stance on something he didn't know exsisted. That being stem cells, and the research of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Jesus doesn't exist...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you're pretty ignorant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm ignorant for not believing in a fictional story?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus' existence is not fictional. Whether or not he was the Son of God is up for you to decide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are ignorant for not knowing that.

[Angryburrito]

As soon as there's proof that he existed then I'll start considering whether or not he's anybody's son.

[Guest GhostRanger]

As soon as there's proof that he existed then I'll start considering whether or not he's anybody's son.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is proof. Not only were the Jews meticulous about their record keeping (therefore, we have records of him existing) but we also have the crucification records that Romans keep from when he was crucified, and countless other documents from other non-Christian sources who referenced Jesus as a real person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one argues about whether or not he was a real person, it is whether or not what he said was accurate. The more you post the more TIF is going to know how ignorant you really are. Once again, no one argues about his existence except the truly ignorant.

[Angryburrito]

>_>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, I can definitely see when I'm losing a battle :oops: . I haven't done any research on the subject nor do I have the time at the moment, so I'll concede defeat to the fact as to whether or not he was a real person. But I guess that he would have to exist, otherwise people wouldn't really follow in his footsteps as Christians, and it would be silly to base a widespread religion off of fiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a side note, is there any physical evidence that he existed (a bone, a hair, a tooth, etc.) or is it just the records of the Romans?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do not feel that he has any importance in the world whatsoever; he was just another ordinary person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't bother continuing the argument, my Web Design class is over and I'm not going to have further computer access.

[Tigra00]

 

We don't NEED emryotic stem cells, but until abortion is illegal, we should use them. Why just throw them away? They died in vain then. One could argue they'd die in vain either way, but if they help save a life, then their life wasn't a waste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success. The stem cells in emryo's and your spinal fluid are essentially the same as far as I know of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But no, we don't NEED them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is with all your posts recently where you talk about things "You're sure of" without actually looking anything up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm pretty sure blah blah blah..." Who cares?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because everything you said has no evidence either? I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence that everything you are against, as a person, has massive amounts of scientific research supporting your reason for being against it. Could it be that you're reading too much of your Christian partisan websites again? Yea.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

We don't NEED emryotic stem cells, but until abortion is illegal, we should use them. Why just throw them away? They died in vain then. One could argue they'd die in vain either way, but if they help save a life, then their life wasn't a waste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success. The stem cells in emryo's and your spinal fluid are essentially the same as far as I know of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But no, we don't NEED them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is with all your posts recently where you talk about things "You're sure of" without actually looking anything up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm pretty sure blah blah blah..." Who cares?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because everything you said has no evidence either? I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence that everything you are against, as a person, has massive amounts of scientific research supporting your reason for being against it. Could it be that you're reading too much of your Christian partisan websites again? Yea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If sources like Time magazine are Christian partisan websites, then yes.

[Tigra00]

 

As soon as there's proof that he existed then I'll start considering whether or not he's anybody's son.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is proof. Not only were the Jews meticulous about their record keeping (therefore, we have records of him existing) but we also have the crucification records that Romans keep from when he was crucified, and countless other documents from other non-Christian sources who referenced Jesus as a real person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one argues about whether or not he was a real person, it is whether or not what he said was accurate. The more you post the more TIF is going to know how ignorant you really are. Once again, no one argues about his existence except the truly ignorant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The egyptians are said to have been the most maticulous record keepers of all time, and their records says nothing of any of the plagues, just for an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's nice that you conveniently only tell the side of the story that supports your beliefs. If you truely wanted to prove us all wrong, then tell us of something glorious that we cannot argue against at all. That'll show us.

[Tigra00]

 

 

 

We don't NEED emryotic stem cells, but until abortion is illegal, we should use them. Why just throw them away? They died in vain then. One could argue they'd die in vain either way, but if they help save a life, then their life wasn't a waste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success. The stem cells in emryo's and your spinal fluid are essentially the same as far as I know of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But no, we don't NEED them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is with all your posts recently where you talk about things "You're sure of" without actually looking anything up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm pretty sure blah blah blah..." Who cares?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because everything you said has no evidence either? I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence that everything you are against, as a person, has massive amounts of scientific research supporting your reason for being against it. Could it be that you're reading too much of your Christian partisan websites again? Yea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If sources like Time magazine are Christian partisan websites, then yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude, Emyrotic stem cells are the exact same thing found in your spinal fluid. What "Time" PROBABLY said (I haven't seen this) was that they've found no evidence of it working because they haven't even been allowed to TRY IT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christian zealots won't allow them to aquire embryo's that are usable. What they've BEEN using are frozen and old as crap...You could of course expect them to not work as well as they should...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to the above...The other guy...Don't admit defeat to GhostRanger. He only tells one side of the story. Use the other side of it and he'll stop posting. Works everytime!

[insane]

 

I guess it depends on your view of abortion, and whether that is ethical or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does embryonical stem cell research actually involvs aborting fetuses?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Someone hit me with a source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wikipedia[/url]":lsvsb2po]Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting an embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. Some opponents of the research also argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and tantamount to the instrumentalization of a potential human being

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So not a fetus, but pretty close. It's destroying that potential human anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wikipedia[/url]":lsvsb2po]To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research

[Tigra00]

 

 

I guess it depends on your view of abortion, and whether that is ethical or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does embryonical stem cell research actually involvs aborting fetuses?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Someone hit me with a source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wikipedia[/url]":evf492bp]Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting an embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. Some opponents of the research also argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and tantamount to the instrumentalization of a potential human being

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So not a fetus, but pretty close. It's destroying that potential human anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wikipedia[/url]":evf492bp]To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll respect your beliefs that it's "pretty close" to a fetus, but in actuality, it isn't. I understand your moral things, and when you think deep about it, it doesn't seem right, because eventually, it WOULD have been a human, but yea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 day old embryo's are made up of 150 cells. 150 Cells TOTAL. In comparison, there are over 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly alone. Everytime you swat a fly, you kill more cells than you do via destroying an embryo. I would guess that you destroy more cells when you scratch your nose, too. :P And remember, under the right circumstances, any cell in our bodies can potentially be a human given the right engineering and the like...So, no more nose-scratching holocausts, guys. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think people are just afraid of scientists. They think they're going to start growing babies in tubes and killing them off, and that's not what they're trying to do.

[BlueTear]

 

 

 

So not a fetus, but pretty close. It's destroying that potential human anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a cluster of 150 cells or less that were left over at fertility clinics after in vitro fertilization. If it is not used for stem cell research it is discarded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The potential of a cell cluster in a petridish after a mother has been succesfully fertilized is exactly zero. There is no potential to rob it of.

[Jaziek]

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Jesus had no stance on something he didn't know exsisted. That being stem cells, and the research of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Jesus doesn't exist...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you're pretty ignorant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm ignorant for not believing in a fictional story? :shame:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its been proved that he existed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not saying im a christian, cos im not, but he did exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on topic: If they can cure spinal injuries then im all for them - my dad broke his neck playing rugby and is paralyzed from the waist down. Now tell me its wrong to try and cure him. Tell me its wrong to tear a few hundred cells away before they are human to try and cure stuff like that......

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

The results?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wikipedia[/url]":1fff9s06]To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^ Embryonic stem cell research has yielded absolutely no results concerning medical benefits - and that is the only type of stem cell research that is controversial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alchemy and Astrology did not yield any useful theories, however their practice did lead to the important disciplines of chemistry and astronomy.

 

 

 

Stem cell research is what around 40 years old? Don't you think you are calling this a little too early, after all it took around 90 years for chemistry to come up with the periodic table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you place so much emphasis on medical treatment as being the purpose of stem cell research. It is just as important to gain a scientific understanding of stem cells in order to further our understanding of human biology, then it is to produce a medical treatment. There is no reason why an archaic view of reproduction should be the cause to abandon the search for a broader understanding of nature. Especially when there is absolutely no tangible benefit to be had in abandoning stem cell research.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

Jesus doesnt think its okay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think its really inhumane, why bother altering the nature cycle of life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, why bother creating medicine that can save peoples lives. Why bother creating anything that helps with taking care of your self or curing yourself of disease. We should just live all natrualy without any of this medicinal stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly dude. And anyways, if the fetus is already aborted why not use it for something useful, instead of just throwing it away?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to answer your question in a different way... a lot of environmental ethicists are claiming the problems with our environment stem from population problems and would be more easily fixable if we quit trying to cure natural population reducers. The well-being of our planet is ultimately, of course, the well being of humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And would you agree that it is o.k. if your close relative, parent or brother died because of an unexpected brain disorder/disease (which is not inherited and can happen to anybody) and accept it as a 'natural population reducer'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, those people would most likely do anything to survive. If the woman donor donated out of her free will, I don't see a problem.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Why do you place so much emphasis on medical treatment as being the purpose of stem cell research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, I don't. I said that I didn't agree with Bush's decision to veto the stem-cell research bill. I'm merely stating some facts that many people are aware of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And would you agree that it is o.k. if your close relative, parent or brother died because of an unexpected brain disorder/disease (which is not inherited and can happen to anybody) and accept it as a 'natural population reducer'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, those people would most likely do anything to survive. If the woman donor donated out of her free will, I don't see a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, I never said that I agreed with anything so I don't know why that's an issue. I was talking specifically about a lot of environmental ethicists. My point is that it should at least be taken into consideration that all of these "medical cures" we can discovery through stem-cell research is just going to lead to overpopulation which is very bad for our planet, and ultimately very bad for humanity. It's interesting to me that many people who care so much about protecting our environment fail to realize that extending the lifespan of people by curing otherwise terminal diseases is horrible for our environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a stance - I'm just making an observation about the so-called "good" that comes from curing medical problems.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

We don't NEED emryotic stem cells, but until abortion is illegal, we should use them. Why just throw them away? They died in vain then. One could argue they'd die in vain either way, but if they help save a life, then their life wasn't a waste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success. The stem cells in emryo's and your spinal fluid are essentially the same as far as I know of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But no, we don't NEED them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is with all your posts recently where you talk about things "You're sure of" without actually looking anything up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm pretty sure blah blah blah..." Who cares?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because everything you said has no evidence either? I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence that everything you are against, as a person, has massive amounts of scientific research supporting your reason for being against it. Could it be that you're reading too much of your Christian partisan websites again? Yea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If sources like Time magazine are Christian partisan websites, then yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude, Emyrotic stem cells are the exact same thing found in your spinal fluid. What "Time" PROBABLY said (I haven't seen this) was that they've found no evidence of it working because they haven't even been allowed to TRY IT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christian zealots won't allow them to aquire embryo's that are usable. What they've BEEN using are frozen and old as crap...You could of course expect them to not work as well as they should...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to the above...The other guy...Don't admit defeat to GhostRanger. He only tells one side of the story. Use the other side of it and he'll stop posting. Works everytime!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Is there another side to the fact that Jesus was a real person?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. I noticed you quit commenting about whether or not embryonic stem-cell researched has produced any results once a source was given. Isn't that what you just accused me of doing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. The Christian/Bush perspective is not generally to not allow people to conduct embryonic stem-cell research - but just not to use their tax dollars to fund something they think is morally reprehensible. Of course, the same argument could be made that people who don't agree with the death penalty are forced to fund it. There are plenty of groups conducting embryonic stem-cell research now, you would know that if you knew anything about this issue.

[Tigra00]

 

 

 

 

 

We don't NEED emryotic stem cells, but until abortion is illegal, we should use them. Why just throw them away? They died in vain then. One could argue they'd die in vain either way, but if they help save a life, then their life wasn't a waste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success. The stem cells in emryo's and your spinal fluid are essentially the same as far as I know of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But no, we don't NEED them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is with all your posts recently where you talk about things "You're sure of" without actually looking anything up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm pretty sure blah blah blah..." Who cares?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because everything you said has no evidence either? I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence that everything you are against, as a person, has massive amounts of scientific research supporting your reason for being against it. Could it be that you're reading too much of your Christian partisan websites again? Yea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If sources like Time magazine are Christian partisan websites, then yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude, Emyrotic stem cells are the exact same thing found in your spinal fluid. What "Time" PROBABLY said (I haven't seen this) was that they've found no evidence of it working because they haven't even been allowed to TRY IT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christian zealots won't allow them to aquire embryo's that are usable. What they've BEEN using are frozen and old as crap...You could of course expect them to not work as well as they should...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to the above...The other guy...Don't admit defeat to GhostRanger. He only tells one side of the story. Use the other side of it and he'll stop posting. Works everytime!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Is there another side to the fact that Jesus was a real person?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. I noticed you quit commenting about whether or not embryonic stem-cell researched has produced any results once a source was given. Isn't that what you just accused me of doing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. The Christian/Bush perspective is not generally to not allow people to conduct embryonic stem-cell research - but just not to use their tax dollars to fund something they think is morally reprehensible. Of course, the same argument could be made that people who don't agree with the death penalty are forced to fund it. There are plenty of groups conducting embryonic stem-cell research now, you would know that if you knew anything about this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know it's being done. It's being done shabbily because it isn't being funded, plus it's being done with old, frozen cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never stopped commenting on embryotic research...You told me you read it in Time, and I told you they probably said there's been no success with it because of the current state of the cells they're using, which is to say, not good. Like I said, they're the SAME cells we get from our spinal fluid. Accept it.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I know it's being done. It's being done shabbily because it isn't being funded, plus it's being done with old, frozen cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never stopped commenting on embryotic research...You told me you read it in Time, and I told you they probably said there's been no success with it because of the current state of the cells they're using, which is to say, not good. Like I said, they're the SAME cells we get from our spinal fluid. Accept it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As soon as sources were quoted, you changed your tune. I never said why medical benefits haven't been made - I just said they hadn't and you denied it. However, after I gave you a source to find and insane quoted a source for you - you changed your tune.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you still failed to respond to how I'm only giving one side of the "Jesus was a real person" argument.

[Tigra00]

 

I know it's being done. It's being done shabbily because it isn't being funded, plus it's being done with old, frozen cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never stopped commenting on embryotic research...You told me you read it in Time, and I told you they probably said there's been no success with it because of the current state of the cells they're using, which is to say, not good. Like I said, they're the SAME cells we get from our spinal fluid. Accept it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As soon as sources were quoted, you changed your tune. I never said why medical benefits haven't been made - I just said they hadn't and you denied it. However, after I gave you a source to find and insane quoted a source for you - you changed your tune.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you still failed to respond to how I'm only giving one side of the "Jesus was a real person" argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't in on the whole "Jesus was a real person" argument, and it wasn't what I was refering to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never changed my tune, either. I said advances were made, you said they were not, I told you yes, they were, and you're obviously misquoting your source because what I'm sure they said, was that there haven't been as good of advances because of the state of the cells. Like I said, they're the same cells we get from our spinal fluid. There is no difference between the two. To say there is is to say that God has put some magical curse upon embryo's so they'd not work as well. Lawl.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I wasn't in on the whole "Jesus was a real person" argument, and it wasn't what I was refering to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never changed my tune, either. I said advances were made, you said they were not, I told you yes, they were, and you're obviously misquoting your source because what I'm sure they said, was that there haven't been as good of advances because of the state of the cells. Like I said, they're the same cells we get from our spinal fluid. There is no difference between the two. To say there is is to say that God has put some magical curse upon embryo's so they'd not work as well. Lawl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I said that there have been no medical successes from embryonic stem-cells and you countered by saying there had. If that is not what you meant then say that. I know that you changed your tune because you went from saying "there have been successes" to "there have been no successes because..."

[Tigra00]

 

I wasn't in on the whole "Jesus was a real person" argument, and it wasn't what I was refering to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never changed my tune, either. I said advances were made, you said they were not, I told you yes, they were, and you're obviously misquoting your source because what I'm sure they said, was that there haven't been as good of advances because of the state of the cells. Like I said, they're the same cells we get from our spinal fluid. There is no difference between the two. To say there is is to say that God has put some magical curse upon embryo's so they'd not work as well. Lawl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I said that there have been no medical successes from embryonic stem-cells and you countered by saying there had. If that is not what you meant then say that. I know that you changed your tune because you went from saying "there have been successes" to "there have been no successes because..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I said there have been successes. You said there have not because Time apparently said so, and I said no, what I'm sure they said was that it's been lacking compared to spinal-stem cells because of their condition - bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get why you do not understand this. It's a simple concept.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

I wasn't in on the whole "Jesus was a real person" argument, and it wasn't what I was refering to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never changed my tune, either. I said advances were made, you said they were not, I told you yes, they were, and you're obviously misquoting your source because what I'm sure they said, was that there haven't been as good of advances because of the state of the cells. Like I said, they're the same cells we get from our spinal fluid. There is no difference between the two. To say there is is to say that God has put some magical curse upon embryo's so they'd not work as well. Lawl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I said that there have been no medical successes from embryonic stem-cells and you countered by saying there had. If that is not what you meant then say that. I know that you changed your tune because you went from saying "there have been successes" to "there have been no successes because..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I said there have been successes. You said there have not because Time apparently said so, and I said no, what I'm sure they said was that it's been lacking compared to spinal-stem cells because of their condition - bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get why you do not understand this. It's a simple concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly we're arguing different points then if you agree with what insane quoted as a source (which you promptly ignored). Because that was my point. So if you're not arguing with that statement - you aren't arguing with me.

[Nadril]

 

 

Jesus doesnt think its okay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think its really inhumane, why bother altering the nature cycle of life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, why bother creating medicine that can save peoples lives. Why bother creating anything that helps with taking care of your self or curing yourself of disease. We should just live all natrualy without any of this medicinal stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly dude. And anyways, if the fetus is already aborted why not use it for something useful, instead of just throwing it away?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to answer your question in a different way... a lot of environmental ethicists are claiming the problems with our environment stem from population problems and would be more easily fixable if we quit trying to cure natural population reducers. The well-being of our planet is ultimately, of course, the well being of humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be honest I wouldn't see it having that large of an effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, medicine costs money. No doubt that once they come up with a cure using this that it will cost. A lot of poorer people, thusly, really won't be able to aford it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus, there are many other ways of controling population. Natural disasters, for example.

[Guest GhostRanger]

To be honest I wouldn't see it having that large of an effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, medicine costs money. No doubt that once they come up with a cure using this that it will cost. A lot of poorer people, thusly, really won't be able to aford it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus, there are many other ways of controling population. Natural disasters, for example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't speaking specifically to stem-cell research, but all advancements for the benefit of saving lives. It is true that the population has skyrocketed exponentially since scientific advancements have been made, and that it has a damaging effect on the Earth. Whether or not the halting of scientific advances for the benefit of saving life is the solution - it is one thing to consider. In broader terms...my challenge really is this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is something good just because it saves lives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not trying to make a personal point, just throw out some food for thought.