@Mr[CENSORED]Rednecks = "Those no good imbred sodomy loving hypocritical redneck corporate-worshipping ReTHUGliKKKan scum, always incorrect and always jumping to conclusions about a vast majority of people!"
There is a moral way to obtain embryonic stem cells that the Lefitst-directed taxpayer dollar apparently overlooks. By simply withdrawing blood and fluids from an umbilical cord the moment after a fetus is born and before it is cut, embryonic stem cells can be harvested with no harm to the baby, mother, or the sanctity of life!
the government shoulcnt have ever had a say in the research of stem cells. it is medical research and the government didnt pay for it when the research was first happening so why should they have even had a say. if anyone remembers the history of transplants the nazi's discovered it because they didnt have to rely on morals to do their research. so when it comes to medical research i think the holy book and opinions need to stay away. its science not something that you can talk about and find.
To insure tax dollars are used the way we want them. The government sends an empty envolop and a sheet of paper. You put your tax dollars in to be sent to the government and on the paper you write down what half your taxes go to fund. There should be a law to let this happen so the people can directly send their money to parts of the government they support. If you support the armed forces you can put your money to that. If you want to see the new twin towers built put your money there.
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Steve, there is a little bit of an issue with your argument. As a conservative I too am on your side about embryonic stem cell research, but that does not discount the fact that major medical breakthroughs have been achieved with these 'little critters.' There has been tremendous research done with stem cells (both adult and embryonic) in ALS, Parkinson's, PAOD, and many more degenerative diseases. Despite your opinion, you cannot discount the fact that there is promise there.
Wow just wow the amount of illiteracy this cocksucker has is just amazing. He potrays a redneck as a left winger when we all know rednecks are usually fucking republicunts.
I know I am way late to the party here, but one of the best ways to get and do stem cell research is by ambilical cords. Now when you have a baby they offer to hold on to part of it in case your baby gets sick so that they can use the cord fluid to make whatever to heal them, if they can. but it's like 5000 bucks to do. How about we make a trade. They will hold on to half the cord for free, saving you child and use the other half for research. What a concept and no one seems to have it. ??
My question is why be adamant about embryonic stem cell research when they could use the funds to save the cord blood. It costs a few thousand dollars to save that blood for an individual. But it should cost nothing for labs that are prepared for it. And yet it has just as much potential to becoming whatever you need it for as embryonic cells, without the ethical dilemma. Think of it, a baby lives, and you get to have the research. That's two birds with one stone.
The whole point of research isn't to magically find a cure right away. Look at pharmaceuticals, they spend billions on failed products, but a lot of life saving medicine comes through. Should we call that wasteful spending? Science is science. If you don't want to donate a fetus after having an abortion, don't. But, if you do, why should someone tell me I can't. It won't bring back the fetus, but at least theirs some purpose for it.
The truth about embryonic stem cells vs adult stem cells is that embryonic stem cells don't have enough progress in their research for them to be used for anything atm, we arn't able to control what kind of cells they become with current knowledge. adult stem cells have been applied and work for treatment however they dont have as much potential. there is a thing called iPS cells which should end embryonic stem cells, they make any cell pluripotent like embryonic stem cells (no embryos needed)
I'm a libertarian but I that the facts support that adult stem cells are actually more desired and the market reflects this. Furthermore, there are people who don't use embryonic stem cells because of ethical reasons - people who don't support abortion and don't want their cure to come from the death of a child who didn't even get the chance to live yet
Embryonic stem cells are more unstable than adult stem cells. A man had a tumor in his brain. Scientists put embryonic stem cells in his brain to try and eliminate in. Instead, because they are underdeveloped and unstable, instead of curing him, hair started to grow on that section of brain into where they inserted them.
It's funny that the used car sales man character is actually Steve Chowder satirizing himself. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. In every video he makes false claims and if he as any "evidence" to back those claims up you'll find this evidence comes from conservative websites.
Now excuse me. I have to read a bedtime story to my sperm. They're people too, you know.
Embryonic stem cell you say? Sure, i'll pay my tax for it. They already found a cure for Parkinson's disease, what else are they going to cure? So awesome.
it makes no sense to kill potentialy healthy children to save old people in their 80's or help saving a child that will never be a completely healthy child allowing them to get to sexual maturity and pass on their desease. I know it sounds horrible but thats how nature works she kills the people who in nature should not pass on genes.
@DivineChaos90 those babies should be buried and made into flowers they died horribly. Abortion should not be funded by the goverment. if you want one you should pay for it. unless you were raped.
Steve, I have agreed with almost all of what of you have spoken for/against, but you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to this subject. I have done the research, and would be more then happy to share with you my findings. And the reason that venture capitalists have not put forth any principle towards this technology, it is simply because they are not allowed. Embryonic stem cell research is limited to universities and a select few private laboratories.
all the people that "liked" this Piss me off, StevenCrowder you should do more research before you make a poor excuse for a video; its just sad that you would bash stem cells when they are going to save and rebuild the lives of millions of peoples hopes and dreams. So that they can live better life's .
It's like telling a kid not to do something, as soon as they get a chance it doesn't matter how bad it is they will do it just to show they could or to just rub it in ur face that they didn't have to listen to you.
But the video totaly missed the subject. Its out of question what stem cell research could be for human. We are talking about endless transplantation organs, without complcations. We are talking about the most promissed weapon against the main desease of humanity, cancer. We are talking about the biggest breaktrough in medizin of humanity.
But of course companies dont want to do the basic research, this is the job for universities.
I hope you break your spine and enjoy your life in a wheelchair, hoping that stem cells will someday cure your paralysis. I love how the guy is republican and conservative himself ROFL.
The crowd declaring "little promise" for embryonic stem cells are the very same crowd seeking to ban its public research. With relatively little market incentive for stem cell research, adult or embryonic, no one can use failures in the private sector to indicate overall success and still be intellectually honest.
@Ilovezebrapig You know, when the Nazis were killing the Jews, they said to themselves, "We shouldn't let all these people go to waste." So they performed grotesque experiments on human beings. How dare ANYONE insinuate that there life is more important than anyone else's.
Why do people think that being pro-choice means we WANT to have every woman get an abortion? We just want the woman to be able to have an abortion if it might interfere with her life, cause significant economic loss, or if the baby might be born with a major defect. You make it sound like Obama wants more embryonic stem cell research because he hates feti or something. Which is ridiculous.
@Truent12 A fetus has no conscious mind, it's not alive. It has no feelings, emotions, and it doesn't feel pain. (as you or I think of it). Murder is the unlawful taking of someone else's life.
@Jarut195 There are dead fetuses and alive fetuses. To say that all fetuses are not alive betrays near perfect ignorance of biology. Cells replicating=alive.
@JohnScott700 Ugh, that's not what I'm saying. By the logic that everything that has replicating cells is alive, you shouldn't be able to slaughter cows for food, or step on a flower. A fetus is not the same thing as a baby. A fetus doesn't become life-like until the seventh month of pregnancy.
So what I'm saying is, if you think that a fetus is 100% alive and deserves the rights all humans get, then why do cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, etc, (conscious creatures) get no rights at all.
@Jarut195 "By that logic everything that has replicating cells is alive" - Yes, that is what it means to be alive. "you shouldn't be able to slaughter cows for food" Why shouldn't we? We kill a lot of things that are alive. Men, women, children, cows, dogs, blacks, Japanese, Native Americans. Why should cows be special?
Where do you think rights come from? Unborn children have no natural rights and neither do you. Go ahead and kill the kid, and somebody else kills you. I'm ok with that.
@JohnScott700 ... you're not making any sense. I'm making the point that not everything that has replicating cells is entitled to the right to life. Post-natal humans, dolphins, whales, chimps, gorillas, pigs, and dogs. Those are the animals I think are entitled to the right to live, they are the most intelligent, they are conscious, and have many of the mental capacities as humans (things like emotions, and such). I say, that abortion should be legal until the third trimester.
@Jarut195 Think for a moment, ok? Where do rights come from. Simple question. Answer it. Just because you think somebody is entitled to rights and somebody else isn't doesn't mean that anybody is in fact entitled to rights.
@JohnScott700 Rights come from the government. It's an uncomfortable truth but its the government that decides what rights you do and do not get. Now, in a democracy, you have a voice in the government's decision making. And so the question comes up, whose rights are more important, a half-developed fetus, or a pregnant woman in over her head?
@Jarut195@Jarut195 Very good, rights come from the government! Now you're thinking, and you can stop pretending that some entities are entitled to rights and others are not. In a democracy, if the majority decides that blacks have rights, then they have rights. If not, they can be slaves. Pretty simple, eh?
And then you go into a question of whose rights are more important, as if value statements could be objectively true. You were thinking for a moment then gave it up. Sad.
@JohnScott700 You're right, value statements can't be objectively true. It's up to the populace to decide who's rights are more important. But it is my firm opinion that a woman's rights are more important than the half-developed embryo she's carrying. If you insist on forcing a woman to bring one more baby into our vastly overpopulated planet, then we're all going to have to suffer for that decision.
If we had say an overpopulation of chickens, wouldn't you prefer we smash all the eggs?
@Jarut When you say that the rights of the mother are more important, you've already admitted that the statement is subjective valuation. Why re-iterate it? If you have no objective standard to bring to the table, you're left with subjective and arbitrary statements which cannot aspire to be truth-apt.
You value the mother's rights more, somebody else values the German's rights and devalues the Jews. After all, the world is allegedly overpopulated.
@JohnScott700 The difference is that the German murdered live, conscious, post-natal Jews. Abortion isn't the same thing as the murder of a real, living person. If the Germans had forced 12 million Jewish mother to get abortions, not as many people would remember, would they?
@Jarut, we can define "real living person" however we want to. As far as definitions go, there is not such thing as an objectively true definition. We can define "real living person" as "white person" or "Aryan" or "male" or however we want to. Your presupposition of an objectively true definition of personhood renders your argument absurd.
And the only reason we condemn the Nazis is because they lost. If they had won, they would be writing your morality and Jews would be remembered as evil.
@JohnScott700 No, we condemn them because our culture hates racism above anything. I understand the point you're making, they'd rule the world right now if the Allies had lost in the war, but no matter what happens, no one can control your thoughts, and I'd still hate the Nazis whether they won or lost World War II. I have no objective morality. No one writes my morality. I base my actions on the basis of what makes me happy without hurting anyone is okay.
@Jarut195 No, your culture doesn't hate racism. Pretty much the whole world sees American as a Mecca of race-centric, gender-centric, class-centric idiocy. If abortion was illegal, you'd appeal to your idiot morality and say that is right. The fundamental mistake of your thought process is the belief that the collective somehow has a right to decide who has the right to live and who doesn't.
Nobody writes your morality? So it's just a coincidence that you happen to be parroting pop morality?
@JohnScott700 Pop morality? There's two decisions about abortion, either it is illegal or it isn't, that's it. So I might be going with the more popular choice, but I didn't pick it because it's the most popular, I picked it because I think it's right. That's WHY its the most popular. Stop undermining the benevolence of the human spirit. People like you have the tendency to portray humans as these sick murderous, stupid, creatures, incapable of ever doing anything right.
@Jarut195 You picked it because you think it's right? You think it's objectively right? That's absurd. Objectively true moral statements are impossible. So you think it is right by virtue of your thinking it is right? That's circular and meaningless. As for your sick, murderous, stupid morality: YES! I think it is sick stupid and murderous. Incapable of doing what is right? Of course you are incapable of doing what is objectively right; there is no such thing.
@JohnScott700 I never said I think my positions are objectively right. Didn't i just get through explaining that objective morality doesn't exist? Morality is simply doing what hurts the least amount of innocent people. If you have the option between killing a person, and not killing a person (so long as this person is innocent) then it is morally right to not kill that person, and morally wrong to kill that person.
@Jarut195 "Morality is simply doing what hurts the least amount of innocent people." - That's your morality. Why do you suppose your morality is right?
@Jarut195 "I think it's right" Ha. Everybody’s morality is their own values, and no morality can be right or wrong. The Jews morality is right according to the Jew and the Nazi’s morality is right according to the Nazi, and arguing over whose morality is right and whose is wrong is meaningless because morality is subjective and everybody’s morality is right according to their own subjective values.
@JohnScott700 Then why are you arguing with me?!?!?!?! Do you take pleasure in making yourself look smarter in front of a few people on the comment pages of a youtube video? If you say that morality is according to the individual then you can't impose you're pro-life morality on me, and I can't impose my pro-choice morality on you. So... have a nice day, I guess.
@Jarut195 Are you happy with the conclusion which you have reached? I am. You can't impose your morality on anybody, and I can't impose mine on anybody. Mothers cannot impose their morality on their unborn children. Does that satisfy you? I'm attempting to lead you away from morality, which does not provide us with the answers to these questions.
@JohnScott700 But I wasn't imposing my morality on anybody, was I? I don't go out in the streets and find pregnant women and try and convince them to get abortions. I just think that if you aren't ready to have a baby, can't afford to take of it, or something else, then you should have an abortion, and the government should make it legal for you to have such operation.
@Jarut195 In a democracy, everybody imposes their morality on others. That's the nature of the game. When you decide on the basis of your morality that certain ethnic groups, certain age groups, or certain religious groups may be killed and the killers protected by the force of law, you're imposing your morality on people.
@Jarut195 You didn't just condone the killing of unborn humans, as if you had the right to determine who gets to live and who doesn't? If you admit that you have no right to impose your morality on anybody and promise not to interfere if I decide to kill your family, then you're being completely consistent and we are in agreement.
@JohnScott700 Exactly... I CONDONE the termination of unborn feti (or fetuses, I never know the correct pluralization of the "fetus"), but I don't encourage it. Besides, morals are not objective, so no, I wouldn't let you kill my family. Stop it with the "gotcha" remarks, okay. I think abortion should be legal, have a nice day.
@Jarut195 How is it different? Both are taking of a human life=murder. If you don't want your family murdered, tell me why. You have magical natural rights or something?
@JohnScott700 If the taking of a human life = murder then why is it legal for American soldiers to kill batshit insane Iraqi insurgents, why is it legal for the cops to shoot someone if he looks like he's reaching for a gun, why is it legal for the prison system to euthanize people who rape and murder, why is it legal for you to shoot me if I break into your house and threaten to hurt you and brandish a weapon. Because sometimes taking a human life is different than murder!
@Jarut195 Why is it legal? Because nations define laws like they want to. That would seem to be obvious. Just because murder is murder doesn't mean it has to be illegal. That depends on the legal system. If we define blacks or Jews as subhuman, then we are free to kill them. If we abandon science, then everybody is free to define "human" in their own terms and I can define it to exclude you and your family.
@JohnScott700 Ok, fine, but we don't abandon science... and that's why abortion is legal. I understand the point your making but you don't have to play devil's advocate on everything :P
@Jarut195 Actually, morality IS objective, that is why some things feel innately wrong and innately right to everyone. And the exceptions to this are called psychopaths, and everyone else agrees that there is something wrong with them.
Um. Your wrong? It is an important step. Steven, you say that more prgress has been made with adult stem cells, and thats true, because the ban has only just been lifted...like you saId. Adult stem cells are limited to a certain degree.
Good point, but I think he's asking whether it is smart to cause a ton of ethical debate for the cause of something that doesn't look altogether too promising. The science of something is always warped when brought into a political context, unfortunately.
i wonder why no advances have been made recently through embryonic stem cell research.... MAYBE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BANNED????? hmmm.... i'm no intellectual heavyweight, but you can't fool me on that one, nice try.
There's a reason that most progress has been made with adult stem cell research, because embryonic stem cell research was not funded by the government, adult stem cell research was. Now that researchers can secure governmental funding embryonic stem cell research will be further researched.
This was probably the most funniest thing I have read in awhile.. Looks like someone's a little angry? XD "a good life." You just got on the internet and called someone you know nothing about a "dipshit" and a "PIECE OF SHIT." What's up with all these Caps Lock words anyway? Do you think I can read what you say any louder when you type LIKE THIS? And the reason I wrote with numbers is because there's only a few character counts.
FYI a "human" embryo is a "human" life, you ignorant fool.
if an embryo is human life, then sperm by the exact same logic is human life. therefore every time you masturbate (and im sure thats a lot cus you got no pussy) you are killing human life. I don't feel human embryos are life, and i don't think human sperm is life. I think a fully grown human fetus, when it has blood pumpin in the viens (after 16 weeks pretty sure) is human life. i am not an ignorant fool but i feel as if you might be one. READ A BOOK
I am not a guy so all your assumptions of me are wrong as usual but anyway how is sperm human life? You just claim it is "by the exact same logic" but you do not tell me how that is logical. In case you're not aware an embryo is formed once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell. And the whole "READ A BOOK" phrase was extremely clever. Did you come up with it all by yourself?
And are you not aware of what you call ppl over the internet? it "does very little BUT does make you look like a cunt."
OMG yes sperm and an egg met to form a zygote, the zygote will develop into an embryo and then into a fully developed baby human being. what don't you get about that. i never said sperm was life, i said people who consider an emvryo life would have to consider sperm life. so suck a cock
I know you never said sperm was life, but you're saying I think that by logic. I asked you how???? If you don't know the answer then say so. Don't make yourself look dumber by telling me to "suck a cock." Just say you don't understand logic.
I don't understand logic, YOU DONT UNDERSTAND LOGIC. YOU said you consider an embryo human life, therefore the two pieces that make the embryo are logically living before they meet if you would consider the embryo to be living. therefore if the embryo is alive, then sperm must be alive, then the female egg must be alive in a logical order of contiguity. You have no answers at this point, and the conversation is becoming boring because YOU CANT add anything intelligent to it.
To be alive, an organism must be able to grow and reproduce offspring. An embryo can not reproduce, but is a step in reproduction and therefore it is nonlogical to call a step in the manufacturing of life, actual life. I know this many be confusing because religion has hurt your ability to think critically, but if you try im sure ill see the non-logic in your argument. thank you for allowing me to enlighten you. it was my pleasure.
@Ballsooker0lol Are you not aware that all children who have not yet hit puberty can't reproduce? HAHA. So all children can be murdered.. Real good logic there, Bud.
AHHHHH this is to easy, you must be a really dumb person. A child has the potential to reproduce given time. A sperm, given all the time in the world will never reproduce, a female egg given enough time will never turn into an adult. BOTH the egg and sperm, must meet, and grow in very very very specific conditions before they become a fetus. Even then the fetus needs very specific conditions to be born. A CHILD ONLY NEEDS TIME TO BECOME REPRODUCTIVE. Really not that hard to understand.
@Ballsooker0lol You're kidding? All kids need is time? Last time I checked they needed food, water, shelter, oxygen, etc.
You said, and I quote "To be alive, an organism must be able to grow and reproduce offspring." So according to you time is not an issue. You just changed it from reproduction to time.. And now if you have to be in a very very specific condition you can be murdered. Make up your mind. You can't just change facts to fit your opinion. You are a really dumb person.
what facts did i change? To be alive you need to be able to reproduce and grow. a child will eventually reproduce. An embryo will only get the chance to reproduce IF it gets implanted on the uterine wall ( one in five embryos are destroyed because they cant implant) IF it makes it to the fetus stage (which again a lot of embryos will die) then it needs to be born. IT NEEDS 3 specific conditions to be able to reproduce, a child only needs to grow more. IF you cant see the difference your dumb
OK i am going to try this one more time very slowly. Yes all living things need food, water and such. A child to become needs those things, plus time to reach puberty. An embryo needs much more then those basic needs to reach reproductive potential because it is not alive. For example an embryo must implant itself into the uterine wall to survive. One in five embryos are destroyed because they can't implant. Therefore they NEED MORE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS to reproduce.
. These extra conditions make the embryo nonhuman in the sense that only when it has completed these extra steps and add it to the fetus stage, will i and any scientist you ask call it a living human being. Like you called me dumb, but half your sentence don't even make sense, please learn to write in proper english. In science we classify things based on their actual properties and if you examine the properties of an embryo it is nothing like that of a living human being.
to call the two the same is completely nonlogical and stop talking about murder. an abortion is not murder, because a huge % of embryos are murdered naturally by the body if you wanna call it murder.
@Ballsooker0lol So you believe that if someone needs to live in a specific condition before it's able to reproduce it is not valued as life and has the right to be murdered? And yes, murder is when someone kills someone else. It has nothing to do with natural deaths. Obviously if a natural death occurs it's not murder. But we're talking about someone who willfully gets an abortion or destroys an embryo. As long as you don't destroy it it will ALWAYS have a chance to reproduce.
Sorry I've been outta touch for a couple of weeks, but getting back to your reply. Your a fuckin moron. Embryos do eat and poo in the womb. You of all people should know this, seeing as your nothing but a puddle of after birth.
So by your definition, sterile people are not alive?
An embryo eventually becomes a child, which eventually becomes an individual capable of reproducing, does it not? The "stages of development" given to embryos/fetuses are quite arbitrary; even after birth, the human body continues to go through other stages of development (i.e. puberty, menopause). So, I believe the only line we can draw where something becomes "alive" is fertilization.
@ThesisOfRock See i can tell you put some thought into that statement and yes there is a lot of ambiguity over this issue but let me restate.
Yes the human body continues to change and develop after birth, and it would be stupid to consider a sterile person not alive. BUT THE distinction is that an embryo is totally reliant on the mother. even a fetus, after a certain point has functioning organs. thats where science makes the cut off, if the fetus has functioning organs its human.
I am not trying to say an embryo is not living, it is in every way possible living, but it is not a human being. a human being must be born. A thats where the distinction is, an abortion is killing an embryo which a small group of developing cells with human DNA. A living human being or even a fetus is much different and i would never consider aborting a very developed fetus, only maybe to save the mother.
I don't know... there have been tests that show that embryos, after a certain stage of development, can respond to its mother's voice and music. There is a ton of ambiguity in this issue, but for me, the brain makes the man, not the birth. I don't know though. It's good to see a calm debate taking place on the internet. I look forward to what you have to say.
@masterfeatherpen I like seeing a calm debate to, much better for actually getting your idea across. I know exactly what studies you are referring to and yes your are correct. after around 2 to 3 months, a fetus has functioning organs and can response to their environment in maybe different ways. this is unlike an embryo which has no functioning organs and is completely non-reactive to its environment. therefore i would never abort a fetus only an embryo, unless the woman's health is bad.
Hey Ballsucker, You are a dumbass. I know you have heard that before. Let me tell you why I am against killing preborn children. It is the murder of the innocent. I saw videos in the early 1970s during the protests after our Supreme Court ruled that fetuses have no rights. In these videos it showed a baby being aborted by dnc which is a process that puts a very strong salt or saline solution into the embryonic sac. The baby was burned by the chemicals. It was writhing in pain until it died.
i am not self indulgent in any way, how are my actions self indulgent in any way. your going to burn in hell with your christian hypocrite friends so go butt fuck one of them right now.
I have a daughter who is 12 now. She was 2 months premature born at 7 months. I held her and she could hold my finger at that age. Partial birth abortion takes babies a day before delivery date and kills them when they are fully feeling and I don't need God to tell me that it is wrong to kill a baby at that stage. You are just a self indulged dumbass and you will pay. Burn.
See your the true dumbass because you are not even trying to read what i wrote and comment about that. I specifically said i only support abortions that are before 16 weeks. WHAT doesnt your dumb ass get about 16 WEEKS. if the mother is pregnant FOR MORE THEN 16 WEEKS, then i dont think she has the option to abort her baby. 16 WEEKS, please learn to read, and actually read others comments before you post something really stupid. BUT your to dumb to even read this.
I haven't researched much about embryonic cell research, but it seems unlikely that it's so ineffective as you imply. If adult cells do the same job, why bother to research it that much anyway?
There was also a case here in Norway where a kid would die unless he got cells from an embryonic sibling, but it's illegal here. He either died, or was saved in another country with saner laws, don't remember.
Besides, it's not that big of a deal to use embryos. I mean, they're just embryos...
Yes sir, they do. But when you say "just embryos" you miss something; they are human embryos. The brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract has already begun to form and it has DNA. I believe that in any stage of life a human with DNA should not be destroyed. I do know that ppl disagree and feel it's OK to destroy them, but I don't. I was given the right to life so I will always support other's right to life.
But as I said do your own research. Don't take my word for it. Thanks.
And by the way, when you say you always support other's right to life, does that only include humans, or other animals as well? What about a cow, or a cat, are human embryos with zero awareness or feelings worth more to you than them?
What does being aware and having feelings have anything to do with murdering someone? Are you suggesting that someone with congenital analgia or someone who is asleep can justly be murdered?
And yes, it does include humans. You and I both know very well know I was talking about humans, so please don't turn this into another argument that you know has nothing to do with it. I sadly just don't have the patience for that.
It has something to do with it, because what is it that makes you value different creatures the way you do, and why? Is a human embryo worth more than an animal just because it happens to be human, and if so, why, what's the logic?
A sleeping person has a major life that he will wake up to, and people that love and need him/her, the same thing can't be said for embryos.
A sleeping person has a major life that he will wake up to, and people that love and need him/her, the same thing can't be said for embryos @ hermanessences your argument is absurd, in your own words you just lampooned the very point you were trying to make. And if you value an animals life equal to or above a human life, its no wonder your post are so idiotic.
I'll share one point with you, however I feel trying to convince anyone that values an animals life equal to a humans, has larger issues that no amount of comment sharing will ever change. This is what an animal thinks.... Eat, Sleep, Poop, Mate, Drink,, not necessarily in that order. Above and beyond that, cognisant thought does not exist.
How do you know? You are a human. And besides, IF an animal thinks about less than us doesn't mean that I will value it lower than, say, a sadistic serial killer. But I'm apparently weird. ;)
YOUR THE idiot he never said he valued an animals life more then a human. He said human embryo, a human embryo is not a human being. an embryo can not eat, it can not shit, it can do nothing that a GROWN animal can do. therefore you can never and should never compare an EMBRYO with an actual breathing PERSON. YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
i can tell your a very angry person, with a lot of closeted feelings. Its okay, im sure one day you'll get laid, move out of your mothers house, and realize that calling a person a dumbass over the internet does very little BUT does make you look like a cunt. therefore, i hope this moves you to embrace reality and maybe get laid??
@ballsooker, Hey Dumbass. Bring lots of burn ointment when you die cause you are gonna burn.Hey dumbass, what gives anybody the right to kill an preborn baby?
hahaha what you think that scares me, i would love to meet the devil but i just don't think he exists, same with god. i don't fear death in the same way you do. if the baby is under 16 weeks then it is completely the mothers decision to keep it or not. cus even if the mother keeps the baby, the most important part is how she raises it. The plant as of right now doesn't need more neglected children, because they grow into dickheads like you.
I'm NOT asking u if a person has the right to live after they sleep. I'm asking you if at the very moment when they r asleep they have the right. Because if you say it's because after a certain period of time they will wake up u can say the same about embryos; After a certain period of time they will be born and eventually be adults.
And also u didn't answer about congenital analgia. So according 2 u we can only come to the conclusion that feelings and thoughts don't equal the right to live
Yes, but the fundamental difference is that a sleeping person is already a grown, developed and integrated being, whereas a fetus is not. I don't know what the hell congenital analgia means, and I don't bother to google it either.
Noone has the right to live, rights are concepts we make up in our own minds, and no, feelings and thoughts don't necessary equal the right to live in my opinion.
U wrote 2 me "human embryos with zero awareness or feelings worth more to you" I was just pointing out that those things don't equal some1's worth.
If u think rights r concepts we make up in our own minds why is what u say not just something u make up in ur own mind? This convo. is pointless if we r making up concepts as we go. LOL. Obviously I don't believe that. If ur an atheist/evolutionist, no offense, you're most likely deluded & no amount of reasoning will change ur opinion of murder.
@HannahRenee23 how are atheist/evolutionist deluded. Some one who believes in evolution is reasonable. by definition someone who believes in religion is unreasonable and not logical. there is no logic is god, there is only faith. You should open your mind more, religion is a closed door that leads to nothing but to a life of doubt and wasted time.
If u take a look at all the scientific laws u'll see that it's impossible 4 evolution 2 have occurred. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe. How's that by definition not logical?
I'm the 1 living a life with God so how can u tell me it's a waste & doubtful thing when you aren't even experiencing it?.. God is apart of ur life no matter how much you deny it. That's why hermanessences doesn't know the value of human life, his view on life in general is wrong.
Scientific Law says its impossible "4 evolution 2 have occurred", i think i may have just read the dumbest thing ever. You clearly have no understanding of science, or more likely you have no education because your a religious nut job. God does not exist and when you die you'll rot in the dirt like everyone else. BUT i will have lived a good life and fully experience what our beautiful society has to offer. you will have spent your life praying for an after life that wont come.
IF you jack off you are destroying HUMAN DNA, you know nothing about science stop trying to act like you do. AND YES SPERM IS A STAGE OF HUMAN LIFE dipshit.
Still funny 2 years later!!
joejumps4fun 2 months ago
@Mr[CENSORED]Rednecks = "Those no good imbred sodomy loving hypocritical redneck corporate-worshipping ReTHUGliKKKan scum, always incorrect and always jumping to conclusions about a vast majority of people!"
TurtleShroom 6 months ago
There is a moral way to obtain embryonic stem cells that the Lefitst-directed taxpayer dollar apparently overlooks. By simply withdrawing blood and fluids from an umbilical cord the moment after a fetus is born and before it is cut, embryonic stem cells can be harvested with no harm to the baby, mother, or the sanctity of life!
TurtleShroom 6 months ago
the government shoulcnt have ever had a say in the research of stem cells. it is medical research and the government didnt pay for it when the research was first happening so why should they have even had a say. if anyone remembers the history of transplants the nazi's discovered it because they didnt have to rely on morals to do their research. so when it comes to medical research i think the holy book and opinions need to stay away. its science not something that you can talk about and find.
fataxe1 6 months ago
To insure tax dollars are used the way we want them. The government sends an empty envolop and a sheet of paper. You put your tax dollars in to be sent to the government and on the paper you write down what half your taxes go to fund. There should be a law to let this happen so the people can directly send their money to parts of the government they support. If you support the armed forces you can put your money to that. If you want to see the new twin towers built put your money there.
drnogood59 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
Steve, there is a little bit of an issue with your argument. As a conservative I too am on your side about embryonic stem cell research, but that does not discount the fact that major medical breakthroughs have been achieved with these 'little critters.' There has been tremendous research done with stem cells (both adult and embryonic) in ALS, Parkinson's, PAOD, and many more degenerative diseases. Despite your opinion, you cannot discount the fact that there is promise there.
SoaK012 8 months ago
LOL! This is one of your best videos.I love that Crazy Pete!
lauraloft 8 months ago
Dumb Liberals.
ThatHaloGuy117 9 months ago
Idiot
patrickgpking 10 months ago
Wow just wow the amount of illiteracy this cocksucker has is just amazing. He potrays a redneck as a left winger when we all know rednecks are usually fucking republicunts.
MrFuckRednecks 10 months ago
Comment removed
TurtleShroom 6 months ago
I know I am way late to the party here, but one of the best ways to get and do stem cell research is by ambilical cords. Now when you have a baby they offer to hold on to part of it in case your baby gets sick so that they can use the cord fluid to make whatever to heal them, if they can. but it's like 5000 bucks to do. How about we make a trade. They will hold on to half the cord for free, saving you child and use the other half for research. What a concept and no one seems to have it. ??
meghankathleen222 11 months ago 8
My question is why be adamant about embryonic stem cell research when they could use the funds to save the cord blood. It costs a few thousand dollars to save that blood for an individual. But it should cost nothing for labs that are prepared for it. And yet it has just as much potential to becoming whatever you need it for as embryonic cells, without the ethical dilemma. Think of it, a baby lives, and you get to have the research. That's two birds with one stone.
KatrinTulev 1 year ago 2
Don't really care about Embryonic Stem Cell Research or treatment.
But I do care about the Government trying to fund it.
If you want people to give up their children (or soon to be children) for scientific research, good luck convincing them.
If you want no one to take a life, even if your definition starts at insemination, good luck convincing them.
Just don't ****ing ask for the government to help your cause.
sabata2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sabata2
Dumbfuck asshole every research in the medical field are funded by the Government. Fucking idiot.
MrFuckRednecks 10 months ago
@MrFuckRednecks
Outside of the complete lack of grammar and civility, I like how you phrase your argument.
"This is how it's done, SO IT CAN NEVER BE DONE ANY OTHER WAY."
I have been enlightened. This must be what they mean when they talk about "Progress."
It can't be undone, so you must "progress" past it and just add on to it.
I can't believe I've never met such a geniu-
PFFFFF HAHAHAHAHA... I'm sorry I just couldn't say it. I'll try again.
Such a geni- HAHAHAHAHAHA... I can't do it, man.
sabata2 10 months ago 2
Hello Mr. Fuck Rednecks. MY name is Mr. Fuck LIberals and iam telling you to go fuck yourself.
piker19 2 months ago
The whole point of research isn't to magically find a cure right away. Look at pharmaceuticals, they spend billions on failed products, but a lot of life saving medicine comes through. Should we call that wasteful spending? Science is science. If you don't want to donate a fetus after having an abortion, don't. But, if you do, why should someone tell me I can't. It won't bring back the fetus, but at least theirs some purpose for it.
groam6666 1 year ago
Great Video Steven!!!! this one is great, im pro life.. and after seeing this, idk how anyone could be pro death!
TheConservativeNews 1 year ago
The truth about embryonic stem cells vs adult stem cells is that embryonic stem cells don't have enough progress in their research for them to be used for anything atm, we arn't able to control what kind of cells they become with current knowledge. adult stem cells have been applied and work for treatment however they dont have as much potential. there is a thing called iPS cells which should end embryonic stem cells, they make any cell pluripotent like embryonic stem cells (no embryos needed)
Lacaras21 1 year ago
I'm a libertarian but I that the facts support that adult stem cells are actually more desired and the market reflects this. Furthermore, there are people who don't use embryonic stem cells because of ethical reasons - people who don't support abortion and don't want their cure to come from the death of a child who didn't even get the chance to live yet
RonocDondra352 1 year ago
vicomelgoza - Then answer me this...why would our president get the nobel peace prize? He did nothing for it.
pbowers06 1 year ago
Well at least those dead babys would go to work/good use. Or are you pointing out the fact Aborting is pointless anyway?
gtamythmaster43 1 year ago
Good god! You unfunny, hack of a comedian. The Zapruder film has gotten more laughs than you.
thef13nd138 1 year ago
@thef13nd138 You're an idiot.
gtamythmaster43 1 year ago
@thef13nd138 Your intilted to your opinoin about the comedy, but it dosen't take a genus to see thats not the focus
maximunoutlaw32 1 year ago
Embryonic stem cells are more unstable than adult stem cells. A man had a tumor in his brain. Scientists put embryonic stem cells in his brain to try and eliminate in. Instead, because they are underdeveloped and unstable, instead of curing him, hair started to grow on that section of brain into where they inserted them.
S4JYakuzaZero 1 year ago
Holy shit he is dogmatic there is nothing wrong with holding views on both sides of the fence, shit.
tommo1313 1 year ago
someone doesnt know shit about stem cells hmmm no contribution then why would they get the nobel prize for it?
vicomelgoza 1 year ago
It's funny that the used car sales man character is actually Steve Chowder satirizing himself. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. In every video he makes false claims and if he as any "evidence" to back those claims up you'll find this evidence comes from conservative websites.
Now excuse me. I have to read a bedtime story to my sperm. They're people too, you know.
avenuePad 1 year ago
Paralysis is so funny , you should try it and have an opinion on stem cell research then.
Miller6616 1 year ago
Embryonic stem cell you say? Sure, i'll pay my tax for it. They already found a cure for Parkinson's disease, what else are they going to cure? So awesome.
killerboyfoolz 1 year ago
Lol ohh I get it your a conservative, I was trying to figure out why your information was so bias
DivineChaos90 1 year ago
it makes no sense to kill potentialy healthy children to save old people in their 80's or help saving a child that will never be a completely healthy child allowing them to get to sexual maturity and pass on their desease. I know it sounds horrible but thats how nature works she kills the people who in nature should not pass on genes.
FernandoTorrera 1 year ago
@FernandoTorrera When you have an abortion, the stem cell might as well go somewhere, just saying
DivineChaos90 1 year ago
@DivineChaos90 those babies should be buried and made into flowers they died horribly. Abortion should not be funded by the goverment. if you want one you should pay for it. unless you were raped.
FernandoTorrera 1 year ago
Steve, I have agreed with almost all of what of you have spoken for/against, but you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to this subject. I have done the research, and would be more then happy to share with you my findings. And the reason that venture capitalists have not put forth any principle towards this technology, it is simply because they are not allowed. Embryonic stem cell research is limited to universities and a select few private laboratories.
ojsfiredude 1 year ago
all the people that "liked" this Piss me off, StevenCrowder you should do more research before you make a poor excuse for a video; its just sad that you would bash stem cells when they are going to save and rebuild the lives of millions of peoples hopes and dreams. So that they can live better life's .
MadLeon1990 1 year ago
It's like telling a kid not to do something, as soon as they get a chance it doesn't matter how bad it is they will do it just to show they could or to just rub it in ur face that they didn't have to listen to you.
SeanScythe 1 year ago
it is a ethical problem.
But the video totaly missed the subject. Its out of question what stem cell research could be for human. We are talking about endless transplantation organs, without complcations. We are talking about the most promissed weapon against the main desease of humanity, cancer. We are talking about the biggest breaktrough in medizin of humanity.
But of course companies dont want to do the basic research, this is the job for universities.
The moral problem is another subject
PsychoWulf 1 year ago
Well it's kinda hard to progress with something when a lot of funding for it does not exist.
Also you're another retard that doesn't realize the embryos would be discarded anyway ffs. Like fail ones from infertility labs.
So a resource is being wasted.
mecher3k 1 year ago
I hope you break your spine and enjoy your life in a wheelchair, hoping that stem cells will someday cure your paralysis. I love how the guy is republican and conservative himself ROFL.
Anonymous00006 1 year ago
nice one!
Tesselator 1 year ago
cord blood has stem stem cells
missheadbanger 1 year ago
The crowd declaring "little promise" for embryonic stem cells are the very same crowd seeking to ban its public research. With relatively little market incentive for stem cell research, adult or embryonic, no one can use failures in the private sector to indicate overall success and still be intellectually honest.
DJK1726 1 year ago
don' t joke about this;
it's real serious problem.
lumbar puncture delivery of bone marrow cells is ethical.
rolandsta1 1 year ago
Oh no, why allow other people to live full lives when an embryo (which is not a person but the potential to be one) can't?
If it's going to be aborted why not use it you idiot, it's going to save people.
It has incredible potential, it has already allowed children with Cerebral Palsy to walk again.
Ilovezebrapig 1 year ago
@Ilovezebrapig You know, when the Nazis were killing the Jews, they said to themselves, "We shouldn't let all these people go to waste." So they performed grotesque experiments on human beings. How dare ANYONE insinuate that there life is more important than anyone else's.
historygenius 1 year ago
Why do people think that being pro-choice means we WANT to have every woman get an abortion? We just want the woman to be able to have an abortion if it might interfere with her life, cause significant economic loss, or if the baby might be born with a major defect. You make it sound like Obama wants more embryonic stem cell research because he hates feti or something. Which is ridiculous.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 I was born deformed. My mom didn't abort me. Besides what is the difference between Abortion and murder?!
Truent12 1 year ago
@Truent12
Easy, abortion aborts a fetus, something that can't think.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@Truent12 A fetus has no conscious mind, it's not alive. It has no feelings, emotions, and it doesn't feel pain. (as you or I think of it). Murder is the unlawful taking of someone else's life.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 There are dead fetuses and alive fetuses. To say that all fetuses are not alive betrays near perfect ignorance of biology. Cells replicating=alive.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 Ugh, that's not what I'm saying. By the logic that everything that has replicating cells is alive, you shouldn't be able to slaughter cows for food, or step on a flower. A fetus is not the same thing as a baby. A fetus doesn't become life-like until the seventh month of pregnancy.
So what I'm saying is, if you think that a fetus is 100% alive and deserves the rights all humans get, then why do cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, etc, (conscious creatures) get no rights at all.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 "By that logic everything that has replicating cells is alive" - Yes, that is what it means to be alive. "you shouldn't be able to slaughter cows for food" Why shouldn't we? We kill a lot of things that are alive. Men, women, children, cows, dogs, blacks, Japanese, Native Americans. Why should cows be special?
Where do you think rights come from? Unborn children have no natural rights and neither do you. Go ahead and kill the kid, and somebody else kills you. I'm ok with that.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 ... you're not making any sense. I'm making the point that not everything that has replicating cells is entitled to the right to life. Post-natal humans, dolphins, whales, chimps, gorillas, pigs, and dogs. Those are the animals I think are entitled to the right to live, they are the most intelligent, they are conscious, and have many of the mental capacities as humans (things like emotions, and such). I say, that abortion should be legal until the third trimester.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 Think for a moment, ok? Where do rights come from. Simple question. Answer it. Just because you think somebody is entitled to rights and somebody else isn't doesn't mean that anybody is in fact entitled to rights.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 Rights come from the government. It's an uncomfortable truth but its the government that decides what rights you do and do not get. Now, in a democracy, you have a voice in the government's decision making. And so the question comes up, whose rights are more important, a half-developed fetus, or a pregnant woman in over her head?
Jarut195 1 year ago
Comment removed
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@Jarut195 @Jarut195 Very good, rights come from the government! Now you're thinking, and you can stop pretending that some entities are entitled to rights and others are not. In a democracy, if the majority decides that blacks have rights, then they have rights. If not, they can be slaves. Pretty simple, eh?
And then you go into a question of whose rights are more important, as if value statements could be objectively true. You were thinking for a moment then gave it up. Sad.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 You're right, value statements can't be objectively true. It's up to the populace to decide who's rights are more important. But it is my firm opinion that a woman's rights are more important than the half-developed embryo she's carrying. If you insist on forcing a woman to bring one more baby into our vastly overpopulated planet, then we're all going to have to suffer for that decision.
If we had say an overpopulation of chickens, wouldn't you prefer we smash all the eggs?
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut When you say that the rights of the mother are more important, you've already admitted that the statement is subjective valuation. Why re-iterate it? If you have no objective standard to bring to the table, you're left with subjective and arbitrary statements which cannot aspire to be truth-apt.
You value the mother's rights more, somebody else values the German's rights and devalues the Jews. After all, the world is allegedly overpopulated.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 The difference is that the German murdered live, conscious, post-natal Jews. Abortion isn't the same thing as the murder of a real, living person. If the Germans had forced 12 million Jewish mother to get abortions, not as many people would remember, would they?
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut, we can define "real living person" however we want to. As far as definitions go, there is not such thing as an objectively true definition. We can define "real living person" as "white person" or "Aryan" or "male" or however we want to. Your presupposition of an objectively true definition of personhood renders your argument absurd.
And the only reason we condemn the Nazis is because they lost. If they had won, they would be writing your morality and Jews would be remembered as evil.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 No, we condemn them because our culture hates racism above anything. I understand the point you're making, they'd rule the world right now if the Allies had lost in the war, but no matter what happens, no one can control your thoughts, and I'd still hate the Nazis whether they won or lost World War II. I have no objective morality. No one writes my morality. I base my actions on the basis of what makes me happy without hurting anyone is okay.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 No, your culture doesn't hate racism. Pretty much the whole world sees American as a Mecca of race-centric, gender-centric, class-centric idiocy. If abortion was illegal, you'd appeal to your idiot morality and say that is right. The fundamental mistake of your thought process is the belief that the collective somehow has a right to decide who has the right to live and who doesn't.
Nobody writes your morality? So it's just a coincidence that you happen to be parroting pop morality?
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 Pop morality? There's two decisions about abortion, either it is illegal or it isn't, that's it. So I might be going with the more popular choice, but I didn't pick it because it's the most popular, I picked it because I think it's right. That's WHY its the most popular. Stop undermining the benevolence of the human spirit. People like you have the tendency to portray humans as these sick murderous, stupid, creatures, incapable of ever doing anything right.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 You picked it because you think it's right? You think it's objectively right? That's absurd. Objectively true moral statements are impossible. So you think it is right by virtue of your thinking it is right? That's circular and meaningless. As for your sick, murderous, stupid morality: YES! I think it is sick stupid and murderous. Incapable of doing what is right? Of course you are incapable of doing what is objectively right; there is no such thing.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 I never said I think my positions are objectively right. Didn't i just get through explaining that objective morality doesn't exist? Morality is simply doing what hurts the least amount of innocent people. If you have the option between killing a person, and not killing a person (so long as this person is innocent) then it is morally right to not kill that person, and morally wrong to kill that person.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 "Morality is simply doing what hurts the least amount of innocent people." - That's your morality. Why do you suppose your morality is right?
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@Jarut195 "I think it's right" Ha. Everybody’s morality is their own values, and no morality can be right or wrong. The Jews morality is right according to the Jew and the Nazi’s morality is right according to the Nazi, and arguing over whose morality is right and whose is wrong is meaningless because morality is subjective and everybody’s morality is right according to their own subjective values.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 Then why are you arguing with me?!?!?!?! Do you take pleasure in making yourself look smarter in front of a few people on the comment pages of a youtube video? If you say that morality is according to the individual then you can't impose you're pro-life morality on me, and I can't impose my pro-choice morality on you. So... have a nice day, I guess.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 Are you happy with the conclusion which you have reached? I am. You can't impose your morality on anybody, and I can't impose mine on anybody. Mothers cannot impose their morality on their unborn children. Does that satisfy you? I'm attempting to lead you away from morality, which does not provide us with the answers to these questions.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 But I wasn't imposing my morality on anybody, was I? I don't go out in the streets and find pregnant women and try and convince them to get abortions. I just think that if you aren't ready to have a baby, can't afford to take of it, or something else, then you should have an abortion, and the government should make it legal for you to have such operation.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 In a democracy, everybody imposes their morality on others. That's the nature of the game. When you decide on the basis of your morality that certain ethnic groups, certain age groups, or certain religious groups may be killed and the killers protected by the force of law, you're imposing your morality on people.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 When did I decide that certain religious groups or age groups or ethnic groups are killed? What the hell are you talking about?
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 You didn't just condone the killing of unborn humans, as if you had the right to determine who gets to live and who doesn't? If you admit that you have no right to impose your morality on anybody and promise not to interfere if I decide to kill your family, then you're being completely consistent and we are in agreement.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 Exactly... I CONDONE the termination of unborn feti (or fetuses, I never know the correct pluralization of the "fetus"), but I don't encourage it. Besides, morals are not objective, so no, I wouldn't let you kill my family. Stop it with the "gotcha" remarks, okay. I think abortion should be legal, have a nice day.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 Why wouldn't you let me abort your family? You just said you condone abortion.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 Because abortion of an unborn fetus is different than the murder of living, breathing, post-natal, person! We already explained this.
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 How is it different? Both are taking of a human life=murder. If you don't want your family murdered, tell me why. You have magical natural rights or something?
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 If the taking of a human life = murder then why is it legal for American soldiers to kill batshit insane Iraqi insurgents, why is it legal for the cops to shoot someone if he looks like he's reaching for a gun, why is it legal for the prison system to euthanize people who rape and murder, why is it legal for you to shoot me if I break into your house and threaten to hurt you and brandish a weapon. Because sometimes taking a human life is different than murder!
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 Why is it legal? Because nations define laws like they want to. That would seem to be obvious. Just because murder is murder doesn't mean it has to be illegal. That depends on the legal system. If we define blacks or Jews as subhuman, then we are free to kill them. If we abandon science, then everybody is free to define "human" in their own terms and I can define it to exclude you and your family.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
@JohnScott700 Ok, fine, but we don't abandon science... and that's why abortion is legal. I understand the point your making but you don't have to play devil's advocate on everything :P
Jarut195 1 year ago
@Jarut195 Actually, morality IS objective, that is why some things feel innately wrong and innately right to everyone. And the exceptions to this are called psychopaths, and everyone else agrees that there is something wrong with them.
historygenius 1 year ago
because venture capitalists understand cell biology as much as multiple phd scientists ... fail logic
asdhillon86 1 year ago
Saving peoples lives is so fucked up!
hotdogwheel 1 year ago
@hotdogwheel Let me explain something to you dumbass, you have to take a life to save a life, whats the friggin point?
AmericanApex 1 year ago
@AmericanApex
Embryos are not life.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@mecher3k yes the are they have brains and nerves
Truent12 1 year ago
@Truent12
Developed? Nope.
mecher3k 1 year ago
I'm subscribing!
liberalwankers 1 year ago
Step aside pet rock! so so wrong but so funny!
blamtasticful 1 year ago
Um. Your wrong? It is an important step. Steven, you say that more prgress has been made with adult stem cells, and thats true, because the ban has only just been lifted...like you saId. Adult stem cells are limited to a certain degree.
metalheadoj666 1 year ago
Good point, but I think he's asking whether it is smart to cause a ton of ethical debate for the cause of something that doesn't look altogether too promising. The science of something is always warped when brought into a political context, unfortunately.
masterfeatherpen 1 year ago
i wonder why no advances have been made recently through embryonic stem cell research.... MAYBE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BANNED????? hmmm.... i'm no intellectual heavyweight, but you can't fool me on that one, nice try.
nolanpoepoe 2 years ago
Another grand slam Crowder! Keep'em coming!!! 5 Stars!
USmellLikeObamaShit 2 years ago 2
There's a reason that most progress has been made with adult stem cell research, because embryonic stem cell research was not funded by the government, adult stem cell research was. Now that researchers can secure governmental funding embryonic stem cell research will be further researched.
FallenPhoenix2689 2 years ago
finally a person with some logic.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
This was probably the most funniest thing I have read in awhile.. Looks like someone's a little angry? XD "a good life." You just got on the internet and called someone you know nothing about a "dipshit" and a "PIECE OF SHIT." What's up with all these Caps Lock words anyway? Do you think I can read what you say any louder when you type LIKE THIS? And the reason I wrote with numbers is because there's only a few character counts.
FYI a "human" embryo is a "human" life, you ignorant fool.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
if an embryo is human life, then sperm by the exact same logic is human life. therefore every time you masturbate (and im sure thats a lot cus you got no pussy) you are killing human life. I don't feel human embryos are life, and i don't think human sperm is life. I think a fully grown human fetus, when it has blood pumpin in the viens (after 16 weeks pretty sure) is human life. i am not an ignorant fool but i feel as if you might be one. READ A BOOK
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
I am not a guy so all your assumptions of me are wrong as usual but anyway how is sperm human life? You just claim it is "by the exact same logic" but you do not tell me how that is logical. In case you're not aware an embryo is formed once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell. And the whole "READ A BOOK" phrase was extremely clever. Did you come up with it all by yourself?
And are you not aware of what you call ppl over the internet? it "does very little BUT does make you look like a cunt."
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
OMG yes sperm and an egg met to form a zygote, the zygote will develop into an embryo and then into a fully developed baby human being. what don't you get about that. i never said sperm was life, i said people who consider an emvryo life would have to consider sperm life. so suck a cock
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
This conversation is really quite dull.
I know you never said sperm was life, but you're saying I think that by logic. I asked you how???? If you don't know the answer then say so. Don't make yourself look dumber by telling me to "suck a cock." Just say you don't understand logic.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
I don't understand logic, YOU DONT UNDERSTAND LOGIC. YOU said you consider an embryo human life, therefore the two pieces that make the embryo are logically living before they meet if you would consider the embryo to be living. therefore if the embryo is alive, then sperm must be alive, then the female egg must be alive in a logical order of contiguity. You have no answers at this point, and the conversation is becoming boring because YOU CANT add anything intelligent to it.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
To be alive, an organism must be able to grow and reproduce offspring. An embryo can not reproduce, but is a step in reproduction and therefore it is nonlogical to call a step in the manufacturing of life, actual life. I know this many be confusing because religion has hurt your ability to think critically, but if you try im sure ill see the non-logic in your argument. thank you for allowing me to enlighten you. it was my pleasure.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
@Ballsooker0lol Are you not aware that all children who have not yet hit puberty can't reproduce? HAHA. So all children can be murdered.. Real good logic there, Bud.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
AHHHHH this is to easy, you must be a really dumb person. A child has the potential to reproduce given time. A sperm, given all the time in the world will never reproduce, a female egg given enough time will never turn into an adult. BOTH the egg and sperm, must meet, and grow in very very very specific conditions before they become a fetus. Even then the fetus needs very specific conditions to be born. A CHILD ONLY NEEDS TIME TO BECOME REPRODUCTIVE. Really not that hard to understand.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
@Ballsooker0lol You're kidding? All kids need is time? Last time I checked they needed food, water, shelter, oxygen, etc.
You said, and I quote "To be alive, an organism must be able to grow and reproduce offspring." So according to you time is not an issue. You just changed it from reproduction to time.. And now if you have to be in a very very specific condition you can be murdered. Make up your mind. You can't just change facts to fit your opinion. You are a really dumb person.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
what facts did i change? To be alive you need to be able to reproduce and grow. a child will eventually reproduce. An embryo will only get the chance to reproduce IF it gets implanted on the uterine wall ( one in five embryos are destroyed because they cant implant) IF it makes it to the fetus stage (which again a lot of embryos will die) then it needs to be born. IT NEEDS 3 specific conditions to be able to reproduce, a child only needs to grow more. IF you cant see the difference your dumb
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
OK i am going to try this one more time very slowly. Yes all living things need food, water and such. A child to become needs those things, plus time to reach puberty. An embryo needs much more then those basic needs to reach reproductive potential because it is not alive. For example an embryo must implant itself into the uterine wall to survive. One in five embryos are destroyed because they can't implant. Therefore they NEED MORE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS to reproduce.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
. These extra conditions make the embryo nonhuman in the sense that only when it has completed these extra steps and add it to the fetus stage, will i and any scientist you ask call it a living human being. Like you called me dumb, but half your sentence don't even make sense, please learn to write in proper english. In science we classify things based on their actual properties and if you examine the properties of an embryo it is nothing like that of a living human being.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
to call the two the same is completely nonlogical and stop talking about murder. an abortion is not murder, because a huge % of embryos are murdered naturally by the body if you wanna call it murder.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
@Ballsooker0lol So you believe that if someone needs to live in a specific condition before it's able to reproduce it is not valued as life and has the right to be murdered? And yes, murder is when someone kills someone else. It has nothing to do with natural deaths. Obviously if a natural death occurs it's not murder. But we're talking about someone who willfully gets an abortion or destroys an embryo. As long as you don't destroy it it will ALWAYS have a chance to reproduce.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
Sorry I've been outta touch for a couple of weeks, but getting back to your reply. Your a fuckin moron. Embryos do eat and poo in the womb. You of all people should know this, seeing as your nothing but a puddle of after birth.
excelwelding 1 year ago
So by your definition, sterile people are not alive?
An embryo eventually becomes a child, which eventually becomes an individual capable of reproducing, does it not? The "stages of development" given to embryos/fetuses are quite arbitrary; even after birth, the human body continues to go through other stages of development (i.e. puberty, menopause). So, I believe the only line we can draw where something becomes "alive" is fertilization.
ThesisOfRock 1 year ago
@ThesisOfRock See i can tell you put some thought into that statement and yes there is a lot of ambiguity over this issue but let me restate.
Yes the human body continues to change and develop after birth, and it would be stupid to consider a sterile person not alive. BUT THE distinction is that an embryo is totally reliant on the mother. even a fetus, after a certain point has functioning organs. thats where science makes the cut off, if the fetus has functioning organs its human.
Ballsooker0lol 1 year ago
@ThesisOfRock
I am not trying to say an embryo is not living, it is in every way possible living, but it is not a human being. a human being must be born. A thats where the distinction is, an abortion is killing an embryo which a small group of developing cells with human DNA. A living human being or even a fetus is much different and i would never consider aborting a very developed fetus, only maybe to save the mother.
Ballsooker0lol 1 year ago
I don't know... there have been tests that show that embryos, after a certain stage of development, can respond to its mother's voice and music. There is a ton of ambiguity in this issue, but for me, the brain makes the man, not the birth. I don't know though. It's good to see a calm debate taking place on the internet. I look forward to what you have to say.
masterfeatherpen 1 year ago
@masterfeatherpen I like seeing a calm debate to, much better for actually getting your idea across. I know exactly what studies you are referring to and yes your are correct. after around 2 to 3 months, a fetus has functioning organs and can response to their environment in maybe different ways. this is unlike an embryo which has no functioning organs and is completely non-reactive to its environment. therefore i would never abort a fetus only an embryo, unless the woman's health is bad.
Ballsooker0lol 1 year ago
Hey Ballsucker, You are a dumbass. I know you have heard that before. Let me tell you why I am against killing preborn children. It is the murder of the innocent. I saw videos in the early 1970s during the protests after our Supreme Court ruled that fetuses have no rights. In these videos it showed a baby being aborted by dnc which is a process that puts a very strong salt or saline solution into the embryonic sac. The baby was burned by the chemicals. It was writhing in pain until it died.
highwayhokie 2 years ago
i am not self indulgent in any way, how are my actions self indulgent in any way. your going to burn in hell with your christian hypocrite friends so go butt fuck one of them right now.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
I have a daughter who is 12 now. She was 2 months premature born at 7 months. I held her and she could hold my finger at that age. Partial birth abortion takes babies a day before delivery date and kills them when they are fully feeling and I don't need God to tell me that it is wrong to kill a baby at that stage. You are just a self indulged dumbass and you will pay. Burn.
highwayhokie 2 years ago
See your the true dumbass because you are not even trying to read what i wrote and comment about that. I specifically said i only support abortions that are before 16 weeks. WHAT doesnt your dumb ass get about 16 WEEKS. if the mother is pregnant FOR MORE THEN 16 WEEKS, then i dont think she has the option to abort her baby. 16 WEEKS, please learn to read, and actually read others comments before you post something really stupid. BUT your to dumb to even read this.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
I haven't researched much about embryonic cell research, but it seems unlikely that it's so ineffective as you imply. If adult cells do the same job, why bother to research it that much anyway?
There was also a case here in Norway where a kid would die unless he got cells from an embryonic sibling, but it's illegal here. He either died, or was saved in another country with saner laws, don't remember.
Besides, it's not that big of a deal to use embryos. I mean, they're just embryos...
hermanessences 2 years ago
"Just embryos..."
I definitely recommend you do more research..
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
Okay, like what then? I assumed that since it's called -embryonic cell research-, they used cells from embryos...
hermanessences 2 years ago
Yes sir, they do. But when you say "just embryos" you miss something; they are human embryos. The brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract has already begun to form and it has DNA. I believe that in any stage of life a human with DNA should not be destroyed. I do know that ppl disagree and feel it's OK to destroy them, but I don't. I was given the right to life so I will always support other's right to life.
But as I said do your own research. Don't take my word for it. Thanks.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
Then we agree to disagree, simply as that.
And by the way, when you say you always support other's right to life, does that only include humans, or other animals as well? What about a cow, or a cat, are human embryos with zero awareness or feelings worth more to you than them?
hermanessences 2 years ago
What does being aware and having feelings have anything to do with murdering someone? Are you suggesting that someone with congenital analgia or someone who is asleep can justly be murdered?
And yes, it does include humans. You and I both know very well know I was talking about humans, so please don't turn this into another argument that you know has nothing to do with it. I sadly just don't have the patience for that.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
It has something to do with it, because what is it that makes you value different creatures the way you do, and why? Is a human embryo worth more than an animal just because it happens to be human, and if so, why, what's the logic?
A sleeping person has a major life that he will wake up to, and people that love and need him/her, the same thing can't be said for embryos.
hermanessences 2 years ago
A sleeping person has a major life that he will wake up to, and people that love and need him/her, the same thing can't be said for embryos @ hermanessences your argument is absurd, in your own words you just lampooned the very point you were trying to make. And if you value an animals life equal to or above a human life, its no wonder your post are so idiotic.
excelwelding 2 years ago
Oh really? How so?
hermanessences 2 years ago
I'll share one point with you, however I feel trying to convince anyone that values an animals life equal to a humans, has larger issues that no amount of comment sharing will ever change. This is what an animal thinks.... Eat, Sleep, Poop, Mate, Drink,, not necessarily in that order. Above and beyond that, cognisant thought does not exist.
excelwelding 2 years ago
How do you know? You are a human. And besides, IF an animal thinks about less than us doesn't mean that I will value it lower than, say, a sadistic serial killer. But I'm apparently weird. ;)
hermanessences 2 years ago
Never said I was a human, as a matter of fact, I'm a gerbil.
excelwelding 2 years ago
YOUR THE idiot he never said he valued an animals life more then a human. He said human embryo, a human embryo is not a human being. an embryo can not eat, it can not shit, it can do nothing that a GROWN animal can do. therefore you can never and should never compare an EMBRYO with an actual breathing PERSON. YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
Hey dumb ass. Burn.
highwayhokie 2 years ago
only person who just wrote dumb ass, couldn't even tell me why im a dumb ass. go butt fuck someone dickhead
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
@ballsooker01ol, Hey Dumbass, its because some people are just dumbasses. You are one of them.
highwayhokie 2 years ago
i can tell your a very angry person, with a lot of closeted feelings. Its okay, im sure one day you'll get laid, move out of your mothers house, and realize that calling a person a dumbass over the internet does very little BUT does make you look like a cunt. therefore, i hope this moves you to embrace reality and maybe get laid??
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
@ballsooker, Hey Dumbass. Bring lots of burn ointment when you die cause you are gonna burn.Hey dumbass, what gives anybody the right to kill an preborn baby?
highwayhokie 2 years ago
hahaha what you think that scares me, i would love to meet the devil but i just don't think he exists, same with god. i don't fear death in the same way you do. if the baby is under 16 weeks then it is completely the mothers decision to keep it or not. cus even if the mother keeps the baby, the most important part is how she raises it. The plant as of right now doesn't need more neglected children, because they grow into dickheads like you.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
I'm NOT asking u if a person has the right to live after they sleep. I'm asking you if at the very moment when they r asleep they have the right. Because if you say it's because after a certain period of time they will wake up u can say the same about embryos; After a certain period of time they will be born and eventually be adults.
And also u didn't answer about congenital analgia. So according 2 u we can only come to the conclusion that feelings and thoughts don't equal the right to live
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
Yes, but the fundamental difference is that a sleeping person is already a grown, developed and integrated being, whereas a fetus is not. I don't know what the hell congenital analgia means, and I don't bother to google it either.
Noone has the right to live, rights are concepts we make up in our own minds, and no, feelings and thoughts don't necessary equal the right to live in my opinion.
hermanessences 2 years ago
U wrote 2 me "human embryos with zero awareness or feelings worth more to you" I was just pointing out that those things don't equal some1's worth.
If u think rights r concepts we make up in our own minds why is what u say not just something u make up in ur own mind? This convo. is pointless if we r making up concepts as we go. LOL. Obviously I don't believe that. If ur an atheist/evolutionist, no offense, you're most likely deluded & no amount of reasoning will change ur opinion of murder.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
@HannahRenee23 how are atheist/evolutionist deluded. Some one who believes in evolution is reasonable. by definition someone who believes in religion is unreasonable and not logical. there is no logic is god, there is only faith. You should open your mind more, religion is a closed door that leads to nothing but to a life of doubt and wasted time.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
If u take a look at all the scientific laws u'll see that it's impossible 4 evolution 2 have occurred. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe. How's that by definition not logical?
I'm the 1 living a life with God so how can u tell me it's a waste & doubtful thing when you aren't even experiencing it?.. God is apart of ur life no matter how much you deny it. That's why hermanessences doesn't know the value of human life, his view on life in general is wrong.
HannahRenee23 2 years ago
Scientific Law says its impossible "4 evolution 2 have occurred", i think i may have just read the dumbest thing ever. You clearly have no understanding of science, or more likely you have no education because your a religious nut job. God does not exist and when you die you'll rot in the dirt like everyone else. BUT i will have lived a good life and fully experience what our beautiful society has to offer. you will have spent your life praying for an after life that wont come.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago
According to your own logic someone should not be punished for killing you. because no one has the right to live. Therefore you don't either.
EmperorBarbarosa 2 years ago
*Facepalm*
hermanessences 2 years ago
read his earlier posts. I'm right. I know it's not what he meant (hopefully) but I'm still right.
EmperorBarbarosa 2 years ago
IF you jack off you are destroying HUMAN DNA, you know nothing about science stop trying to act like you do. AND YES SPERM IS A STAGE OF HUMAN LIFE dipshit.
Ballsooker0lol 2 years ago