Ron Paul on Stem Cell Research

[ashwadhwani]

Support Dr. 'Sir' RON PAUL 2012

Welfarism: Give Jack a fish and he wont go hungry today

Freesom: Teach Jack to fish, he will never go hungry!

#UNOCCUPY BIG GOVT.AND THE FED **AMERICA vs MEDIA**

FIGHT MEDIA BLACKOUT SPREAD RON'S 'WHAT IF' AND 'IMAGINE' SPEECH ON IPAD,IPOD

Check Nigel Farage vids taking EU govt. to task

Please vote on vids and comments, Your opinion matters!

Write on dollar bills : IN RON WE TRUST ! END THE FED OR FEED THE END

Click like to support ♥ RON PAUL ♥

[theatlantisrise]

I dont agree with about 70% of what Ron Paul says and/or believes. I dont think he's all that much of a genius. I dont know if he'll make a good President. But what I do know is that he's a one-of-a-kind politician in today's day and age, and that's one who has the decency to rationally say "fuck you" to the game that politics has become and actually listen to what good people are trying to say. If Paul gets elected I will finally believe that elections are not, per se, rigged.

[asg102]

Most people commenting don't understand what Ron Paul is trying to say.

[eddieisfiction]

I dont think most of you guys dont even understand where hes coming from. He doesnt believe the government should fund things that half the people in the US disagree with. He does think that it should be legal, because the federal government shouldnt have the right to butt in.

Hes in favor of it being legal, just not federally funded.

What are you worried about? Most of the medical research isnt even done on the federal level anyways.  Its done by corporations

[TheLostGuitarist]

@eddieisfiction apparently you're uneducated in medical research and therefore you should have probably kept your mouth shut.

I'm a medical student in an M.D. program. I've had my fair share of research experience. MOST research IS FEDERALLY FUNDED THROUGH NIH

Your comment is BLATANTLY wrong.

Also it doesn't matter what the country thinks about it. most of the country thought interracial marriage was wrong and that slavery was the way to a good economy at one time

[TheLostGuitarist]

@eddieisfiction only pharmaceutical research is privately funded as the majority, and EVEN THAT STARTS AS NIH FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT DETERMINE THE DISEASE MECHANISM.

Ron paul does not share the views of most doctors or most people in the medical community.

Stem cell research is the key to curing alzheimers, certain cancers, spinal cord injuries, organ failures (especially myocardial damage), I could go on and on.

[TheLostGuitarist]

@eddieisfiction stem cell research also has nothing to do with abortion. The ONLY objection to stem cell research is from the religious evangelical right. The medical community does NOT accept a ball of 8 cells to be a human. it has potential but is not there.

Being that the only rejection is a religious one, it is unconstitutional to withhold funding on those grounds.

This is the key to the future of medicine, it will save billions of lives. I will never vote ron paul because of that.

[BigMikeMcBastard]

@TheLostGuitarist America has the very real potential to be dethroned as the world leader in scientific advancement because of the religious right. With the opposition to stem cell research, teaching good science like evolution, and overall anti-intellectual position that most conservatives have, it won't be long for less constrained nations to take the lead. I wonder what they'll say when China cures cancer and AIDS and whatever else because America was busy fighting with Bible-thumpers.

[baezalejandro]

@BigMikeMcBastard christians aren't opposed to stem cell research.

u can get stem cells from various places.

they're only opposed to stem cell research conducted on babies.

[nocturnezero]

@baezalejandro No, that's untrue. The people opposed to research into stem cells are opposed to harvesting the cells from unborn fetuses. Actual research is constructed on detached organs or lab animals, studying how stem cells can repair the parts of these organisms. No research that risky is conducted on babies.

[baezalejandro]

@nocturnezero an "unborn fetus" IS a baby!!!!

that's my point... christians don't mind stem cell research so long as it isn't the killing of babies.

[nocturnezero]

@baezalejandro 1. That depends entirely on what parameters you set that define the word "baby." You can change a lot of things with semantics, but you can't change the fact that fetuses are not conscious, cannot feel pain for several months, and can attach no emotional weight to the sensations of pain or the idea of death because they've never experienced these concepts of emotion or death. 2. Even if fetuses were babies, stem cell research is not conducted on either.

[nocturnezero]

@baezalejandro Stem cell research, as I said, is conducted on the organs that stem cells restore and the animals afflicted with the sort of degenerative diseases that stem cells would probably cure. The stem cells themselves are either grown with in vitro fertilization or harvested from unborn fetuses, but they are not actually researched by giving them to human babies.

[Isuckatpaintball2]

this is one of the only things i don't agree with him on....you don't have to kill anyone to research stem cells and even if you did then it would be a small sacrament to save so many people

[nocturnezero]

@Isuckatpaintball2 I think his point was that he doesn't believe the federal government is granted Constitutional authority to provide funding to stem cell research.

[pdaniels9000]

damn I'm glad Ron Paul isn't president (not that he ever had a chance). but being that I'm going into the biotechnology industry when I graduate, I kind of like the idea of the government providing funds to help cure diseases and all of the wonderful things that stem cells can potentially do for society.

[MULESLAX]

crisnolan, you fool, you fool.

[FoxtrotUniformCKilo]

Who the hell thinks that prohibiting the advancement of science in the USA is going to have long-term beneficial effects. NO ONE. Who thinks that the world will stand still while we wait and eventually support stem cell research. NO ONE. I just never understand how people can't see the future when its almost running them over, and they just stand there in the way, trying desperately to slow it down or be (neutral). Why cant we all just jump the fuck out the way and let progress happen.

[nocturnezero]

@FoxtrotUniformCKilo Christians.

[michaelivingstone]

i support ron paul on most thins but i dont on stem cell research...give it a go

[stealthkiller2107]

I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter but this is one issue where I disagree with him.

[crck4488]

fuk the constituion it is out of date, stem cell research can save so many lives

[nocturnezero]

@crck4488 The Constitution isn't necessarily out of date, but Ron Paul is fallacious in searching for explicit Constitutional justification for modern problems. It's like searching for a Commandment about space travel in the Bible. These concepts weren't around at the time of the writing of these texts, so there's no rules laid out about them - the Constitution provides the General Welfare Clause, but Ron Paulites tend to write that off as preamble.

[RainbowManification]

@nocturnezero I get were your going, just because its not in the constitution doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional. However he does seem to want to protect the constitution, so that's why I support him.

[nocturnezero]

@RainbowManification He's certainly more committed to the Constitution than the vast majority of public officials today.

[RainbowManification]

@nocturnezero That's what makes him so unpopular.

[MrJohanasBilderberg]

@nocturnezero

The Commerce clause has been stretched so far from original intent...... commerce, it really has become the catch all for any legislation the Federal Government wishes.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I would point out this is original intent that would cover any and all eventualities.

[treed86]

@nocturnezero What you are saying is pretty fallacious. You seem to think that the Constitution came out of a void. It came about because those who wrote it were trying to fix a lot of the problems of THEIR time and the problems they saw through history up to that point. You speak as if there is no way of changing the document. The Constitution can be amended. But that would require a grand debate, and the power hungry criminals in DC wouldn't want that. Let's just keep letting them...

[treed86]

@nocturnezero ...shove their authoritarianism down our throats, and keep letting them sell us down the river to the giant corporations all the while telling us that it's for our "general welfare." Stop living in a fantasy world where there are no people willing to abuse the power of such a broad phrase as general welfare. He is the true progressive because he would leave the responsiblity to the people to have progress as individuals instead of so called progress that a few people in the...

[treed86]

@nocturnezero ...federal government, along with the corporate interests (which naturally accompanies such power as a central government has) dictate to us. No thanks. I prefer to be a free individual.

[cwp4ut]

would say "This is great, we no longer have the moral delimma." This also is not true. If we make a skin cell totipotent, it is the same as the embryo and will form a clone of the donor, and thus we've created a human

[ThomasJS1]

Have'nt checked this in a while but.

Embryonic stem cell research is Not needed because we have induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells.

In other words, human skin cells that mimic emybonic cells.

So destroying embroyos to harvest their cells is Not necessary.

IPS is a moral and ethical answer to the problem.

[ISOTheGza]

IPS may be the answer. Nobody has proven that an IPS cell is identical to a true embryonic stem cell.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

... I agree that the approach of either prohibiting something or subsidizing it is wasteful, but how is that an argument against public funding for embryonic stem cell research in itself? We have publicly funded fire departments to save lives, why not have publicly funded embryonic stem cell research to save lives?

[megamarsvin]

And that's where simplistic rhetoric like this falls apart. Why is vaccinating against small pox a good thing to subsidize but when it comes to finding a cure for a thousand degenerative diseases suddenly "the market" has to take care of it. It's all arbitrary lines being drawn based on personal preference. That's all it can be.

[rios9000]

publicly funded fire departments are done at the state level not the federal level. What Ron Paul is saying is there is no authorization under the constitution to fund anything like this (he's right) and decentralized government is much better.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"What Ron Paul is saying is there is no authorization under the constitution to fund anything like this (he's right)" - rios9000

True, but why should it have to be authorized by the words of a bunch of dead politicians from hundreds of years ago to be approved? Granted, unconstitutional implies un-American but that means little to me as someone who isn't American even geographically. Social principles should be thought of on their own merits, rather than for what one document says about them.

[rios9000]

Well it all depends on whether you want a country to be governed by the rule of law or the rule of men. I prefer the rule of law given the every dictator, tyrant and despot in history has prefered the rule of men. If we want to change the constitution, fine, then we should amend it. That is allowed for under the rule of law. But if we just pretend the constitution says what we want it to say, the rule of law is dead and we have opened the door to tyranny.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"Well it all depends on whether you want a country to be governed by the rule of law or the rule of men." - rios9000

You say that as if the constitution isn't also the rule of men; the writers of the constituion were also men, what else could they be?

"every dictator, tyrant and despot in history has prefered the rule of men." - rios9000

Guilt by association much? If dogmatically following one document is all that keeps society from tyranny then that's a problem in itself to begin with.

[nocturnezero]

@rios9000 Laws are written, instituted and upheld by...

[rios9000]

I should add, tyranny can be that of the majority. Unbridled democracy is just the right of the 51% to vote away the rights of the 49%. Democracy is an important component of a free society (we have to keep our leaders accountable), but less so than the rule of law, federalism and the seperation of powers.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"I should add, tyranny can be that of the majority. Unbridled democracy is just the right of the 51% to vote away the rights of the 49%." - rios9000

I agree with you completely on this part; where and when did I say otherwise? It's not like I said we should have complete unbridled democracy; it's as if you're rebutalling something I didn't even say. I'm just saying we should be a little less dogmatic about following the constitution; we don't need to accept the arguably arbitrary parts of it.

[rios9000]

relax, that's why I sad "I should add" I was rebutting something you might say. And yes, the constitution was written by men and is fallable (it upheld slavery for instance). But what is represents is a contract with the people who are being governed. If this contract is to change, it should be done so in the way the contract stipulates. Breaking with the constitution is like a breach of contract. While the rules were made by men, they were made to keep men in line and should be followed.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"relax, that's why I sad "I should add" I was rebutting something you might say." - rios9000

Maybe you should've waited to see if I would actually say it. o.o

"yes, the constitution was written by men and is fallable (it upheld slavery for instance" - rios9000

So if you recognize that it's fallable why do you accept what it says about levels of government?

"If this contract is to change, it should be done so in the way the contract stipulates." - rios9000

What do you mean by this?

[rios9000]

Alright, I'm sorry. While the constitution is fallable, everything made by man is. To avoid tyranny (even mild forms) the best way yet devised is to limit what the executive branch can do (and all other branches) to certain rules. Just like laws for the citizens, the constitution is the ultimate law for the government. What I meant by the last part was that the constitution has a built in method of change; amendments. If we feel it needs to be changed, we should amend it, not ignore it.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"If we feel it needs to be changed, we should amend it, not ignore it." - rios9000

I wasn't saying we should IGNORE it; where did you get that idea? Indeed, at least take it into account (and why not take other countries' constitutions into account too?) if only as an inspiration to get you thinking about the implications of an issue, but don't just dogmatically accept it.

That said I was unaware of how amendments could be used to change the constitution. In that case that's a better idea.

[rios9000]

I wasn't accusing you of ignoring it, I was accusing our politicians of ignoring it. And sure we should look to other countries to see what they are doing right and wrong. I think we're more in agreement than anything else.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"I wasn't accusing you of ignoring it, I was accusing our politicians of ignoring it." - rios9000

Oh, ok... but even then, which ones are you referring to, and how do you know they don't simply see it as being not as relevant as aspects outside the constitution, such as in this case questions of "embryo life vs. cures" (which seems to be the mainstream of the ESCR debate)

"I think we're more in agreement than anything else." - rios9000

Maybe so... in any case, sorry if I jumped the gun.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

BTW, when looking for videos about ESCR, I came across some "Mike Malloy" thing (and for the record, I'm not a fan of him, know very little about him, and until finding that video never even heard of him) about the funding issue; it takes the "it's not about the research but about how it's funded" ball and runs the other way with it... please watch it...

[damianpaonejazz]

Grow up Ron Paul for christ sake. You know why is it that people love to bend the constitution as THEY see fit but yet when it serves the people best its off the table. Fuck that. The research has helped more people than anyone is aware of.

[SithLegion3]

This is the one issue where i don't agree with Ron Paul. If there's no federal funding i will never walk again. I've had a Spinal cord injury for 25 years since age 16.

[ThomasJS1]

Scroll down and read my comments.

He only wants to stop funding of Embryonic stem cell research which has had NO results in the last 25 years. However he supports Adult stem cell research which has already proven it's worth. I was watching Science channel just today and saw a man whose heart was saved with HIS OWN stem cells from his bone marrow. So there is hope in Ethical and Moral SCR.

[megamarsvin]

Yes adult stem cells are incredibly useful, most often in cancer cases but also for regeneration of specific organs, skin grafts and so on. This is great, but embryonic stem cells are the only type that, if we figure out how to use them (and eventually we always do) can be used for thousands of diseases that are now untreatable. The main reason is that embryonic cells are 'blank' whereas adult cells come from a developed organ.

[ThomasJS1]

Believe me, I wish you could prove me wrong, I truly do. I want to be wrong I want the unborn not to be human till the 3rd trimester I truly do. But all of my research has proven to me that I'm partially guilty of murder.

[Visfen]

Third second, whatever, whenever the doctors conclude it is human. But I want people like you, and me, and the churches to leave it to them to discuss. Which they are doing. Most doctors share my position, some say it starts at the pregnancy (although they say conception that is what they must mean unless they are total idiots) and most of the debate is whether when an abortion should be legal, not if.

[ThomasJS1]

Well I'm done talking about this with you, You just follow what docs say. That's okay.

Atleast you were civil and I'll take this opurtunity to opalogise if I ever came off as insulting.

I have more important things to do now that the causus is just a few days away.

[ThomasJS1]

Thought I'd add.

Potential: capable of being or becoming. possible, as opposed to actual. a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.

An unborn is Not a potential human. The unborn will if not killed beforehand be a born human being. So by defination an embryo is NOT a potential human, But an actual human. A tree is a potential log but never will be if left alone. Now a child if left to naturally develop will be a born child.

[Visfen]

No, a zygote that is left alone will perhaps be a fetus, that will perhaps be a baby that will perhaps successfully be born. Potential is used when there are no guarantee for what will be. Just as a tree that goes into a sawmill to be a log will become a log unless someone does anything about it there is no guarantees.

[ThomasJS1]

WRONG.

An embryo WILL become a born human unless it dies. That is a FACT. Any one who has taken grade school health classes knows that.

It is that simple. if you refuse to see simple truths and logic than I can no longer talk with you.

[ThomasJS1]

Your log thing is kinda true. But first the tree would have to be cut down. Therefore it would become a dead or dying tree which could become a log. But if left alone would remain a tree unless by the natural order it dies and becomes a dead tree, and so on.

like with a zygote which if left alone Would become an embryo, fetus, baby child teen adult ect. Unless by nature died or if killed by an outside force.

[Visfen]

You can't say "unless killed by nature". That's defeats the whole purpose of the definition.

[ThomasJS1]

I also said or killed by an Outside force aka abortionist / murderer.

And no it does'nt, It says by definition they are human unless killed then they are a dead human. Still human just dead.

I've gone over this several times and can't find any thing to say abortion is acceptable, except in the rare cases where it's needed to save a womans life. Sad and regretable yes, but in some cases unavoidable.

[Visfen]

No it is not human if you would just understand the definition of potential.

Well you did call me ignorant trash... but doesn't matter. What is really insulting is that you reject medical definitions over religious definitions... be wary when in company of fools. :P

[ThomasJS1]

LIke I said Athiest. I don't believe in God I believe in science and Science tells us that the unborn are human.

The trash comment was wrong, But I stand behind calling you ignorant. But worst off is you are willingly ignorant.

[Visfen]

No it doesn't. Then I would have the same position as you.

Ignorant, now fuck off, you don't even understand the definition of potential..

[ThomasJS1]

Yes it does, RP a DOCTOR, right up top there agrees. So that is proof that you are willingly blind.

Read it, I posted it for you yet you still refuse to accept it.

I repeat wilingly ignorant, blind, unseeing, call it what you will, you refuse to accept the truth when presented to you.

You are the type who claimed the Earth to be flat when proof was right in front of you to the contrary.

[lou737]

Ron paul is a very honest man . I will vote for him. THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT IS ALL TO POWERFUL.

[spammerTROLL6]

I am against abortion, but pro killing babies. POUR DRAIN O ON YOUR BABIES EVERYONE!!!

[cellmedicine]

Stem cell research is critical. People dont realize how important it is to discuss this rationally.

[ThomasJS1]

I am Pro Life but not against Stem Cell research. Just look at another of RPs videos. There is umbilical cords, and placentas after giving birth that can be used. And most importantly as far as I know the only Stem Cell research to show resluts is Adult Stem Cell research. That's right the stem cells we all have in our spines. A spinal tap from any1 even me, and they have stem cells. And I only need to deal with being sore for a little while. No sadness over a lost child.

[Visfen]

Could you please explain to me what is wrong with stem cell research? I don't get why you Americans are even debating over it.

[ThomasJS1]

Because they kill babies to get stemcells for a lot of unsucessful studies.

[Visfen]

What the fuck. No they don't.

[ThomasJS1]

Um what do you think abortion is? That's where a large amount of stem cells come from.

But it's not necessary like i said in my origianl comment. Hell there has'nt been in real results from that research.

However with Adult stem cells they are already in testing phases, and we could see some wonderful things in the future. Like new skin for burn patients or repairing the spinal cord of those paralyzed.

cont..

[ThomasJS1]

But the fact remains fetal stem cells come from dead babies and that is just plain sick and immoral.

And before some nut calls me a religous zeliot or something let me make this clear I am an Athiest.

Me calling that immoral is from personal experience and most of all from proven facts.

Science has proven human life before birth.

But that's a whole different subject that I don't feel like talking about here.

[Visfen]

Yeah but the baby is already dead when you use them cells. No matter what you think about abortion, as long as it is legal, why not use it for research? It's not like they go around and grab pregnant women in the street and take their babies for research...

Actually it is, if you actually read about stem cell research today you would know that extracting it from adults is yet to be done.

and btw, a fetus is not a baby, it's goo.

[ThomasJS1]

Wow ignorant trash. Amazing.

[Visfen]

Ignorant trash? really? Human life is often defined to start somewhere in the third trimester.

We learnt about human anatomy trough experimenting on dead bodies. And we will learn about cell growth trough experimenting on stem cells. Morality is relative but progress is not, I think the religious zealots who agree with you will have to stand aside for science.

[ThomasJS1]

I repeat wow Ignorant trast amazing.

Did we kill those people to learn? Did a doc put a gun to a 5 year olds head and kill him just to study?

You say stand aside for science. I agree and Science HAS proven that the unborn child is every bit as human as me.

Humanity is not defined by feelings and such for if it were than what is a coma patient with no feelings? No,  Humanity is defined by the human genome. It's simple fact.

So once again you astound me by your ignorance.

[Visfen]

No, and neither do we kill babies to use for stem cell research, if you are under that impression you are far to uneducated. It is not only those from abortion but miscarriage and so forth that is used for research.

What the fuck? Not at all. Human life as we know it start somewhere in the third trimester... Dare I say it again or will you back down and agree with what is scientific consensus? If you think it's defined by the human genome you would be a mass murderer for scratching your arm..

[ThomasJS1]

Also you call morality relative?

Well good. I say we kill all Choicers in order to progress medical science. For if it comes to feelings my feelings tell me all choicers have forsaken their humanity and are worth no more than a lab rat.

[Visfen]

So you think we should kill those people that are not fucking their bible every night and condemning progress in all categories of science? I have a simple rule - if the Christian right lunatics disagree with something, and they are the only group of people, they are wrong. And I have yet to find a doctor that disagrees with abortion.

[ThomasJS1]

So did you only ask pro choice doctors? Or did you not ask any doctors at all?

Fewer and fewer docs are becoming abortionists. Do you know why that is? Simple science has proven the uborn to be human.

and there you go calling an ATHIEST a Christian. Well that's the greatest insult I've had yet. Go stick your head back in the sand.

[Visfen]

I'm not calling you a Christian, I'm just saying that you're siding with the lunatics. And when in company of fools, be wary that you are likely one of them.

We haven't even defined what human is! Don't use the term "science has proven" as lightly as you do...

My grandmother was a nurse, I know 6 doctors personally.. and this is not a question of debate at all in this country. And you know why? Because we don't have the same Christian lunatics here.

[ThomasJS1]

Last time I checked doctors were not Genetecists. Like I said at the moment of conception the embryo, zygote, fetus or baby all the same is a human being by the fact that it has unique Human DNA. And no a leg is NOT unique it is a part of some one else. More and more scientist are agreeing on this fact. Though I know it will take time to become widley accepted with ppl standing to make money from the murder of the unborn.

[ThomasJS1]

And no not lunatic. Just some one who refuses to take the propoganda from either side. I use to be Pro Choice. But personal expeirence as well as a little research has proven to me the unborn are humans at an early stage of development.

But I should thank you. You are one of the more rational choicers I've talked to. Most I just wind up sinking to their level and having flame wars.

[Visfen]

Well it is more than a question of human life, it is a question if the female should have power over her own body or if the government should. Even if it is defined as life.

It's not about science, it's about philosophy. It's about HOW to define human life. And I think it ridiculous to define ANYTHING by potential. Either way it should be defined by doctors. So our opinions are just completely unimportant, we don't involve ourselves in any other area of science, how is this different?

[ThomasJS1]

See.

You change your position yet once again. Now that I've given examples of doctors considering life to start at conception you change your view to a philosiphical one. Should I research classic philisophy that shows life to start at conception now?

Or will you admit that you just cannot justify your stance? Atleast you're not like some who know it's murder but, see it as infantcide to control population.

[Visfen]

No doctor think life starts at conception. The pregnancy has been seem by some to be the start of life, and that begins four to ten days after conception.

All scientific definitions are partly scientific philosophy. (which is theoretical philosophy)

Ron Paul says the unborn are human. Yes, so do I. Have you seen him talk about it? He never, and doctors who do are idiots, say that life starts at conception. If they do they don't understand pregnancy.

[WilliamHW]

Visfen said "No doctor think life starts at conception. ... "

Actually, that is incorrect. Human Embryologists are the people who study the human embryo, and they say that the human being normally begins via sexual reproduction at conception-fertilization.

The new human also begins life asexually - without sperm and oocyte, in vivo resulting in twins, triplets, etc.

Asexual reproduction also occurs outside the womb via IFV, Cloning, and other means.

[Visfen]

Humanity is not defined by potential. First of all, the whole "life starts at conception" thing is fucking ridiculous, the zygote needs get stuck to the walls of the uterus for it to alive. And a zygote is about as much human life as a skin cell which could also under the right circumstances become human life trough cloning.. You're not a mass murderer for scratching your arm are you?

No scientists define life by potential. I would know, I actually study science.

[ThomasJS1]

Let me ask you.  Have you ever seen an aborted "fetus" or baby in person?

I have. And to call them anything but human is blatant ignorance.

[Visfen]

I have, my mother had a miscarriage in her 6th month when I was four. Not a pleasant sight.

But you truly can't call something human just because it looks like it. You might think your opinion matter here, but it don't. And neither does the politicians opinions either. It's a scientific definition, and the law should abide by that, not the opposite way around. Leave it to the doctors to decide and let's talk about the deficit, the Iraq war or something that the people's opinion matter on.

[ThomasJS1]

Had to reply to this old one.

skin cells are not human, not unique. However if combined to make an embryo through cloning it would be murder to destroy the embryo.

A potential human life is an egg or sperm, but once combined are an embryo, zygote ect, and therefore no longer potential but, just less developed. Potential means may become, yet an embryo WILL become a newborn baby.

[Visfen]

When it comes to the whole "life starts at conception"-argument you must understand that most contraceptive pills work so that the wall of the uterus will reject the zygote. You would't say that is murder would you ?

[ThomasJS1]

Yes I would and any1 with a mind would. Those are called abortion pills if you ask me.

I don't care about birth control that kills an egg because that's just an egg and nothing more but once the sperm enter the egg it is a human zygote.

Did you know that till recently the unborn were always called children or babys? Never before was it a zygote or embryo. Fetus yes because translated fetus means unborn child.

[Visfen]

No, that is how most contraceptive works today. Not morning after-pills, but regular birth control too. And so is a skin cell, you're going in circles.

You know that until 1979 the Catholic church didn't accept copernicanism. And now they are afraid of the advancement of yet another science, maybe year 2500 they will eventually accept medical definitions.

[ThomasJS1]

Who cares about the churches view on it?

And no I am not, you are going in circles. I stand behind what I say. You change your view every few days to try and make me look foolish but you have but to look back a few pages to see this.

Once egg and sperm conbine to create a unique human life people should NOT harm that human.

a skin cell is a skin cell, an egg is an egg, But once a Zygote is created it is Human.

Not going in circles, Just standing behing my rational thinking.

[Visfen]

We made it clear that life is not defined by potential. Then a zygote is not life, it is a skin cell! Look I'm done with you, you keep insulting me cause you don't understand the medical definitions, you're being stupid.

You're not just arguing with me you're arguing with the entire medical branch, and you're telling it that the definition for life is wrong. You're doing just the same thing as the churches does.. the only difference is that you're not a church.

You're completely irrational.

[Visfen]

I've had the same view the entire time, I'm sorry that your straw man doesn't fit my position.

[ThomasJS1]

cause you don't understand the medical definitions, you're being stupid.

That's why I take a doctors word for it. DR. RON PAUL says the unborn are human.

I've stood behind my rational arguement and even provided PROOF. You've made claims, I've given sources.

So again who is being irrational?

I'm tired of argueing with a blind man about the color of his shirt.

Good Bye.

[ThomasJS1]

And I don't use the prase "science has proven" Lightly. But perhaps I should correct that and say proven by some and gaining belief. Back to what I was talking about DNA. Cont....

[ThomasJS1]

That is the only reasonable way to define a human. Because if you go the route of the unborn never played ball ect ect,, then what about ppl in comas or the mentally challenged and so many others. We can only rely on the genome to prove human life. I could go on and on but, talking about this brings up bad memories and I think I've made my point.

[Visfen]

We don't today. That is why we call it a "vegetative state" when they have no possibility to return. A person in that state is about as alive as a tomato.

And even if we rely on the genome, it is still a matter of potential. A tree ready to into a sawmill to become a log has everything going for it to become a log, but it is still a tree until it has been sawed up.

Bad memories? Well let's talk about them. 10k rape victims per day in the US, and you want them to be force to keep those babies?

[ThomasJS1]

Yes.  I'd like more ppl like me who were created by a beast of a father who raped his birth mother.

The rapists should be punished not the child. And putting a rape victim through a second tramatic expeirence yeah that'll help.

[Visfen]

No offense, but the mothers don't. Are you are not one to decide for them.

There is no child until the third trimester. Speak to a doctor and ask him when a human is "complete" and "alive" in the uterus. That is what he'll tell you. You can't kill something that does not yet consist.

And your mother kept you, didn't she? It's a choice _she_ made. Be thankful for that, and not for your government, because if she would have wanted to she could have find a way to abort it anyway.

[ThomasJS1]

Then explain baby's born in the second trimester whom are still alive today.

Can't can you. The simple fact the children have been born as early as 20 weeks put's the lie to what you say.

Point made. Debate won. Have a nice life.

[Visfen]

I will. There is actually very much talk about the advancement of the technology in medicine today that is pushing for an collapse of the previous time plan for abortion. We have doctors here in Sweden who have taken it up with the government and it has been taken into consideration, and probobly the law will be changed.

This is the way to do it. That is what I support. When the child has the ability to survive outside the fetus, it should not be allow to abort it.

[Visfen]

Now please take your arrogance, stick it up your ass and come back when you've grown the confidence, knowledge and cunning to show some humility.

If you think you ever debated me on my views on abortion you're wrong. I've been clear that my and your views are of no importance, it's a medicinal decision. And coming back to stem cell research, which we talk about before. If abortion then is legal, why not use the already dead fetuses? It's just stupid...

[ThomasJS1]

Now you go and completely change your view.

From:

"There is no child until the third trimester."

To:

: When the child has the ability to survive outside the fetus, it should not be allow to abort it."

Cont....

[ThomasJS1]

My earlier statement says that in the second trimester a child can be born and live to be healthy. So like I said I put the lie to what you said so in return you claim to believe something else.

Get your story straight then come back to me and please stop the name calling it does'nt make you look good.

[ThomasJS1]

Also you said let's talk about Stem Cells. Ok. embryonic stem cell research has made no real progression however Adult stem cell research has. That alone is reason enough not to waste time on embryonic stem cell research, leaving out the fact that it's completely unethical. Cont...

[ThomasJS1]

You wrote: Actually it is, if you actually read about stem cell research today you would know that extracting it from adults is yet to be done.

follow my linkys below and see proof that you are wrong, not only have they extracted them but are using them. Ever hear of a bone-marrow transplant? why do you think they do that? any way next comment will have the links.

[ThomasJS1]

Hope spam filter does'nt get the link.

Stemcell research . org/

had to add spaces. think they filtered my last one out. anyway go there and look through the links. nice stories on stem cell research. NO, relults from embryonic cells whatsoever, yet Adult stem cells have already been used. Following is an example...

[ThomasJS1]

Proponents argue that this is the most promising avenue of stem-cell research. They rarely mention, however, that stem cells from non-embryonic sources have treated patients with 73 different medical conditions (including 26 types of cancer); cont..

[ThomasJS1]

embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, have yet to warrant a single clinical trial due to hugely complex problems such as tumor formation, tissue rejection and genetic instability. As non-embryonic research continues to thrive, the optimistic predictions of embryonic stem-cell research-advocates simply "have not held up to scientific experimentation," writes Dr. Maureen Condic in a recent journal article

[ThomasJS1]

Your turn. Tell me why now we should use unborn humans for stem cell research when after 25 years it has'nt shown a single result.

Please do call me arrogant all you like if it makes you feel better for not having a better argument for supporting something that after more than 2 decades has 0 results.

[Visfen]

But it is important to point out that there are some differences between adult and embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, adult stem cells are probobly not. And adult stem cells are not as easy to grow into cell cultures, while embryonic stem cells are relatively easy. On stemcell. nih. gov it is even said that it is yet to be worked out, but you proved that wrong with your link.

[Visfen]

One of the reasons that embryonic stem cell research is progressing so slowly is that it is under legal pressure. And the whole argument "it hasn't made any progress so let's make it illegal" is just insane. Science made no progress during the dark ages, I'm glad it wasn't completely outlawed...

[ThomasJS1]

Fine keep it legal. But STOP federal funding of it. If it was making ANY and I mean any head-way then it would have private funding from sources other than the government or abortionists. It does'nt.

[ThomasJS1]

And I never said make embryonic stem cell research illegal. Just stop killing human embryos to get the stem cells. You can use umbilical cords and placentas to get the same kind of stem cells. Also we now have ways of extracting stem cells from living human embryos without damaging the embryo. Kinda like getting blood taken though that's over simplified.

[Visfen]

But would you not agree that as long as abortion is legal, we should be able to use those cells for stem cell research ?

[Visfen]

I think the laws for funding today are very good. It doesn't put an incentive on abortion and there has to be informed consent. It also outlaws cloning or lab-growed humans, which is naturally something many people would be against - me personally, I think it should be legal. Not because it is a moral issue but because otherwise the investments just go to Korea, Dubai or somewhere else and build an industry there.

[ThomasJS1]

Actually recently there was a law up for vote in New Jersey that would fund cloning humans and implanting the human zygotes in women then waiting and aborting the embryo to harvest the cells.

If anyone thinks that ethical, I'd have no respect for them and honestly think them daft.

[Visfen]

And there are private funding for stem cell research, but most of it today is going over-seas because of the legal pressure. In every branch of every field companies want the most liberal laws and the least legal pressure, the US has more laws on embryonic stem cell research than most nations in the world and it is no wonder why Korea and Japan are so far ahead the US in this area of research.

[Visfen]

No, I said my view was the medical one. And it is the medical one that is about to change. My position is that of the professionals, I don't contemplate this personally because I don't have the background to lay out the definition, even though I do have an extensive knowledge of biology, medicine and science.

[ThomasJS1]

Ahh so if doctors and scientists decided to announce that you are a human at the moment of conception then you would admit abortion is in fact murder?

[ThomasJS1]

And just thought to add some points.

Viability.

Origanal meaning was capable of living. Well the unborn is already alive.

New meaning choicers changed it to:  Capable of living outside the womb.

Yet wait, aprox 20% of all abortions are done on viable children. According to the fact that children have been born as early as 20 weeks and continue to live healthy lives to this day. As you said the doctors understanding is changing.

[Visfen]

"choicers change it to", so it's a conspiracy now?

The reason why science has such a problem to push this to legislators is because the process is so very flawed. Not anywhere in the world do scientists have the power to change the law, which is just crazy. Why do elected idiots have more power in scientific definition and area of research than people that actually work with it?

[ThomasJS1]

Again Some scientists already agree human life as defined by unique human DNA does in fact begin at conception.

And yes doctors as well. RP right up top there believes human life begins at conception.

And to answer your question about the law. Because some scientists would believe expirmenting on humans is okay. I could give examples in Nazi Germany but, won't waste your time cause it's irrevelent.

[Visfen]

Well if scientists told me the sun was green I wouldn't believe them. Of course I would be critical, but as I know they would never say that it begins at conception I know I'm safe.

[ThomasJS1]

Ahh but some doctors and scientists alike already say human life begins at conception. Ron Paul is one of those doctors.

And no not conspiracy, but the defination has changed from it's original meaning, which means some one changed it, and a Pro Lifer would not change it to that, so it's simple logic to assume that a choicer did.

[bignick5469]

Ron Paul is right they do want goverment to take care of them from cradle to grave they will be the first to complain if their bread is stale in the bread line there will be no more middle class all poor or rich back to monarchy. Remember the golden rule... He who has the gold makes the rules

[mabusmojo66]

The only people that think Ron Paul is crazy are lazy socialists and our country is crawling with them .

[dawkinsfan41]

The only people who like Ron Paul are christo-fascists and our country is crawling with them.

[JamesDisaster]

I agree as well. People who disagree with Stem Cell research shouldn't be paying their tax dollars for it. This only leads to more ideological division.

I happen to agree with stem cell researches validity, but I also believe in peoples freedoms to have their beliefs represented in their country.

[Legionnaire18]

I completely agree. Just look how the market has dealt with just about every other technology industry: It's almost always skyrocketed.

Get the government's hands off of it because it's mostly inhibiting it.

[AnnOnimousiAm]

Hey, he doesn't sound crazy in this clip!

[GuiltySpark347]

I dont understad?

[Watcher3223]

In other words, the federal government has no constitutional authority to allow or prohibit stem cell research.

It should be up to the States and the private sector working in a free market to decide whether or not to develop it to its most competitive iteration in the medical community.