Print 80 comment(s) - last by Gzus666.. on Jan 1 at 12:38 PM

Scaffold protects the stem cells when implanted into living animals

Stem cell research is controversial, but has the potential to find cures and treatments for a myriad of diseases that are unaffected by current methods. Stem cells are being heavily researched and scientists at the University of Hong Kong and MIT have published a new study that outlines ways to keep stem cells young and viable.

The research paper outlines a method that promises to keep stem cells implanted in the body for treatment of various conditions "forever young." The new process can slow the growth of the stem cells and the differentiation and proliferation of the stem cells.

One of the paper authors, Dr. Ellis-Behnke said, "The successful storage and implantation of stem cells poses significant challenges for tissue engineering in the nervous system, challenges in addition to those inherent to neural regeneration. There is a need for creating an environment that can regulate cell activity by delaying cell proliferation, proliferation, and maturation. Nanoscaffolds can play a central role in organ regeneration as they act as templates and guides for cell proliferation, differentiation and tissue growth. It is also important to protect these fragile cells from the harsh environment in which they are transplanted."

New advancements in nanotech promise a new era in tissue and organ construction according to Dr. Ellis-Behnke. The researchers developed what they call a self-assembling nanofiber scaffold (SAPNS) used for implanting young cells.

The team used a scaffold that they created as a substrate for stem cell adhesion and migration. This helped the stem cells survive once implanted and helped prevent the invasion of cells from the surrounding tissue. The goal of the SAPNS is to slow the growth and differentiation of the implanted cells to give the cells time to acclimate to the new environment. The researchers have been able to use the technique to extend the life of cells implanted into the brain and spinal cord of living animals.

Ellis-Behnke said, "That delay is very important when the immune system tries attacking cells when they are placed in vivo."

Scientists and researchers have previously used stem cells to restore the vision in a damaged eye and students embedded stem cells into sutures to help promote the healing of tendons after repair.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By jhb116 on 12/30/2009 8:41:40 AM , Rating: 3
I thought only embryonic stem cell research was really controversial?

RE: Controversial
By IGx89 on 12/30/2009 8:51:46 AM , Rating: 5
I was just thinking that myself; the only controversy I've heard of is when obtaining the stems cells involves what many people would consider murder. Avoid that, as scientists can easily do now, and everything's great.

RE: Controversial
By Zstream on 12/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Controversial
By AssBall on 12/30/2009 9:34:47 AM , Rating: 5
LoL @ stabbing an aborted baby. I'm pretty sure the abortion process kills them, Zstream. That's ssuming they are even "alive" in early or pre-fetal stages.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 9:44:51 AM , Rating: 1
A I see you never watched an abortion. I suggestion you watch one and you'd never say such a foolish thing again in your life. The movie "Saw" is not a gory as a re-life abortion. They cut off each limb one by one.

Also consider this; a human is consider dead when their heart stop beating (no machine aid), so let use this solid logic... a human is a live when they have a heart beat... I think that start around day 6 or 7 right...

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 10:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
"re-life abortion" sorry my bad, should be "real-life abortion"

RE: Controversial
By ClownPuncher on 12/30/2009 11:14:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, late term abortions are like that. Pretty horrible. The early ones it is more like a vacuum cleaner hose type of deal.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 11:33:43 AM , Rating: 3
And a vacuum cleaner hose type of deal makes it that much better?? It's still life and still being wiped out. Just not as bloody one way verse another.

RE: Controversial
By Chiisuchianu on 12/30/2009 3:29:33 PM , Rating: 3
When you're a liberal you can get away with anything: murder (abortion), discrimination (affirmative action), and the list goes on. These people are above the law, unfortunately.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 4:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
I see...

RE: Controversial
By fic2 on 12/30/2009 8:17:12 PM , Rating: 5
When your a conservative you can get away with anything: murder (offensive war), discrimination (discrimination) and the list goes on. These people are above the law, unfortunately.

RE: Controversial
By postalbob on 12/30/2009 8:53:46 PM , Rating: 1
FIC: I'm sorry, ignorantly claiming discriminition with no conservative fact that it's part of being conservative is ignorant. See? I just did what you did, only I did it correctly.

Also: Republicans are LESS for war than democrats. Clinton just got smart and went into "Military conflicts" (meaning we fire only when fired on, basically throwing our troops all over the world to get butchered). Who went into WWII? Who nearly started a war with Cuba which would have been world wide? Who encouraged the mentalitiy to destroy communism? The answers are clear: Democrats were VERY for war post WWII and continue to be. I'm sorry, but claiming a biased argument against conservatives with no facts is ignorant. Historically, democrats are more for war, create laws, (taxes regulations and programs) and are above the laws they create (taxes and regulations and programs)

There, I fixed your issues. Based on your very inept comments, I am guessing you are past 18 because you don't have that tone, but you do have a tone of a smart ass between the ages of 25-35.

RE: Controversial
By JonnyDough on 12/31/2009 5:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
I happen to be 30, so in his honor...thank you?

Religion is still the #1 cause of war after greed. We're all "guilty" but the truth is that life is life. We shoot deer, why would we value our own human life so far above that of other nature? We're energy in motion just like sun light or anything else. Mass = energy. Ever split an atom?

Anyway, I think that in the end we're all doomed because human nature repeats itself. We could talk about how big retailers reported higher than expected sales this holiday season but at the same time recognize that its probably a result of competition dying and that we're still screwed - or we could just call the debate over with and say that most people are simply stupid. Your choice. :)

RE: Controversial
By JonnyDough on 12/31/2009 5:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
That should have been matter = energy. I'm such a tool in the wee hrs of the morning. I apologize. :(

RE: Controversial
By delphinus100 on 12/31/2009 3:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
'Brain death' has been the criteria for some time now. Plenty of people have come back from no heartbeat. Sometimes it's even induced deliberately for certain medical procedures.

What that might mean for a fetus, I don't pretend to know.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 1/1/2010 12:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
Also consider this; a human is consider dead when their heart stop beating (no machine aid), so let use this solid logic... a human is a live when they have a heart beat... I think that start around day 6 or 7 right...

This is actually quite flawed logic. The brain can continue living without a heart beat, that is why people are revived all the time after heart attacks. You are really only dead when your brain gives out and dies.

RE: Controversial
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2009 10:20:28 AM , Rating: 2
Is it growing? Then its alive. Just because it isn't self aware doesn't mean it isn't alive. We go to jail for cruelly killing animals in our society, why is cruelly killing an unborn human because the mother was a skank or changed her mind acceptable? Liberals want to give fucking dogs and cats rights but won't give them to an unborn child.

RE: Controversial
By edge929 on 12/30/2009 12:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
Animals or not, the world is already over-populated and at some point we will run out of food. I'm sure we'll see the slow build to limit reproduction, starting with billboards promoting families with a man, woman and one child like China does now. Then it will move to getting a license to reproduce and finally a license, plus social status plus genetic engineering. Many books/movies have already played with this idea (

Sure, some of those kids will grow up to be great scientists and leaders but the same amount will grow up to be criminals and another Hitler.

RE: Controversial
By ClownPuncher on 12/30/2009 12:50:37 PM , Rating: 5
So we eat the babies. Case closed.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 5:11:07 PM , Rating: 3
Well I guess that does explain the phrase: One in the oven...

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 12:58:21 PM , Rating: 3
They said the same thing 200 plus years ago... Way to many people... bla, bla, bla. It's called Malthus-ism (should be correct spelling). He was an economist that thought people would out grow food and such. He forgot to calculate in technology and it growth that we can not predict. Example, farmers today produce so much more food per farmer and piece of land verse 200 years ago...

Long story short, he was very, very wrong and so our your books and movies. Humans always find a way.

RE: Controversial
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2009 1:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
Animals or not, the world is already over-populated and at some point we will run out of food.

That is the dumbest thing I have read today...

RE: Controversial
By edge929 on 12/30/2009 2:23:12 PM , Rating: 3
Go live in India for a month like I have and get back to me.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 2:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, excellent example of how you are not correct. They are still alive and living in India. There is still enough food there... Being poor and hungry is not the same as having no food in the stores to eat....

RE: Controversial
By AssBall on 12/30/2009 1:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
Entropy is alive? Just because you say it is alive doesn't mean it is. You need to get your built in preconception of "cruelty" worked out. And of course you would blame the woman immediately. We can Euthanise dogs and cats whenever we want; I'm not seeing the parallel.

RE: Controversial
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2009 1:44:10 PM , Rating: 1
Liberals want to give fucking dogs and cats rights but won't give them to an unborn child.

Lol yeah the double standard of liberal beliefs is never more exposed than the abortion debate. They fight the death penalty for murderers, but fight just as hard to allow mothers to murder their babies.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 12/30/2009 7:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
...but fight just as hard to allow mothers to destroy their fetuses.

Fixed it for you. Babies mean they are out of the Womb and born, fetus means it is still in the gestation period.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 9:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
Unborn child is equally correct to fetus as a child can refer to a human offspring of any age. The terms ‘unborn’ and ‘fetus’ both refer to the state of development a person is in. Granted, the term ‘child’ is also usually used to refer to a stage of development, but it does not have to be.

The only reason to remove avoid the term ‘unborn child’ and say it is incorrect would be to dehumanize the unborn child. By what scientific evidence is it not a human?

RE: Controversial
By fic2 on 12/30/2009 8:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
And conservatives have no problems being against abortion and for capital punishment and war.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 9:34:07 PM , Rating: 4
Let’s see, killing unborn children to so as not to hamper my lifestyle. Yep, seems bad to me.

Killing murderer’s through capital punishment. Seems like they forfeited their right to life when they started taking other people’s lives. I agree with it.

Protecting my family and freedoms. Some things are worth the cost of war, freedom isn’t free.

RE: Controversial
By delphinus100 on 12/31/2009 3:26:18 AM , Rating: 2
Many things are 'alive.' And animal cruelty laws don't usually apply below invertebrates...

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 9:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
Err you are correct but you just repeated the post above your own post.Just substitute the words some people with Catholic...

RE: Controversial
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2009 10:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
No try Christian and Jewish. I don't think the Islamic religion (not of the blow yourself up for Allah variety) looks too highly on abortion either.

To me its not a religious issue anyway. Unless you're going to say murder is as well. Killing someone is wrong. Period. An unborn child is a person just as much as I am, just at a different stage of life.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 11:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
I would have said Christian... but I was using the other posters words not my words.

Actually it is a very religious issue and yes, murder is a big issue with Christians and Jewish beliefs too. Killing someone is not nice, but it is not always wrong. It is very much in lines with the Bible to kill someone as a punishment for their actions... such as a murder it is biblically OK to kill them (once found guilty of it, not an individuals opinion). It is the killing of innocence that is against Christian or Jewish beliefs.

RE: Controversial
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2009 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
Murder of the innocent is wrong regardless of religion.

Or are you going to tell me atheists believe killing the innocent is OK because they don't believe in God.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 1:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
we were not talking about other religions or atheists. However, you are right that it should be wrong in their world too... But it is not wrong in the Muslim Koran. So there are some people out there who do not see eye to eye. It's also OK to lie in the Koran to get away with things to achieve your goal for Alla. So, if you ask a Muslim is it OK to Murder a non-Muslim that will not convert over to Muslim they will say no... because that the way the Koran wants them to handle it...

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 1/1/2010 12:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like how the bible condones murder of unruly children? That seems reasonable, no?

"If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness." (Proverbs 20:20)

"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:9)

You condemn the Muslims, yet here is a passage you might like:

"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." (Exodus 22:19)

Interesting how you call the kettle black. Seems you are a bit ignorant to your own silly dogma.

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (Chronicles 15:12-13)

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

You should take note how this only applies to women and not men, or did you think sexism only existed in the Muslim world? Burned to death, that seems like something a caring individual would do to his daughter.

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." (Leviticus 21:9)

I could go on with this for quite a bit longer if you care to see your atrocious book any further, cause clearly you haven't read it. Nothing like those religious "morals" to live by.

RE: Controversial
By GodisanAtheist on 12/30/2009 1:08:31 PM , Rating: 3
Technically speaking, Catholics and others that believe in original sin shouldn't really have a problem with aborting an unborn child, since it isn't really innocent then?

Or perhaps the entire concept of innocence, empty, meaningless and vacuous as it is, probably isn't something to base an argument on.

I would think that those that support the right to abort would have issue with both your assertion that an embryo is "innocent" or that its murder.

And I'm getting tired of the "atheist" blanket term, as if that ascribes a certain predefined set of beliefs to a person. I mean, all Monotheists are clearly the same as well, right?

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 1:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
If we were talking about God coming down and killing all non-innocent you would have a point. However, we are not. We are talking about man killing man. The baby in this case has done nothing wrong. Therefore he is innocent of the punishment he is receiving, he has done no crime.

Either you believe in God or you do not believe in God. That is what makes one "atheist"
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds

So, if you do not like it, change you beliefs.

RE: Controversial
By GodisanAtheist on 12/30/2009 10:42:08 PM , Rating: 3
Your synonyms are messed up. It is entirely possible to be an atheist, yet "be inclined toward religious beliefs," as though religion HAS to involve the concept of god. Buddhism is an atheistic religion, it actively denies the existence of a supreme being but no one calls Buddhists "atheists", they're Buddhists.

That is my issue with the blanket term "atheist". Labeling someone an atheist and ascribing a sort of universal credo to them is as meaningless as saying all monotheists share the same values and morals.

In short, there is this weird assumption that atheist = leftist loon-douche and that the two terms can be used interchangeably at will, which is patently false.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 1/1/2010 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
The literal definition of the word Atheism is "a" or "without" and "theism" or "god" from the Greek origin. The term you see in the dictionary is popular definition just like every other definition in a dictionary. Dictionaries merely take the popular definitions of a time period and record them, they don't necessarily mean what they say they mean. This is why in formal debate you may define a word as you like and use it so.

I think you get too touchy about what you are called, merely define yourself properly and move on. By literal definition, I am an atheist. The reality is that atheism is the natural state until you "find" a need for some deity, cause it clearly has no evidence to back it up. I could equally find a need to believe in unicorns, but I don't need to define myself now as a "non-unicornist". Basically it is a useless definition made necessary because of the predominant position of people to be religious at the time of people making up the language.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 12/30/2009 7:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
I seem to remember the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials and so many Jews the Christians/Catholics have killed over the years without any real reason. But your right, they are so against murder, that is why they condone it at every turn.

For example, in Sing Sing about 65% of the prison population that was executed for murder were Catholics, 26% were Protestant, 6% were hebrew and less than 1% were of no faith. The statistics follow suit for every prison in the world. Now, with a straight face you are going to tell me that religious people are against murder? It appears reality doesn't agree. Good news for Hebrews though, it seems like they are less likely to murder than the Christians by a long shot.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 8:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
using tainted numbers... that is you are taking from a pool of 100% criminals and going with what they claim to be... Someone growing up Catholic but has not practiced in 20 years is not really much of a Christian.

All organization have bad apples... the larger the organization the larger the number of bad apples. Roman Catholics numbers are far larger then the others... probably more then all combined (of Christian and Hebrew back grounds)... So your number makes perfect sense. So, yes I will tell you with a straight face that religious people are against murdering. I will also tell you many murders will also claim to be religious people... but just because they claim they are does not mean they are... Just like if I were to say, "I'm part of the billionaire club"... and told you names to make you believe, so that would make me a member?
Going down your path I would expect you to say, "Austrians are very mean and bad people, because Hitler was born Austrian." There is a lot of truth to the statement but a lot more false to that statement.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 1/1/2010 11:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
So you respond with the No True Scotsman fallacy? Clearly they aren't true Christians because you say so. Nicely played.

RE: Controversial
By bighairycamel on 12/30/2009 10:50:16 AM , Rating: 4
From a Catholic POV, we only care about the stem cells that come from aborted babies. You know the ones where they stick a knife in the babies neck and kill it?
I can't believe this argument is even still occuring. Researches are not harvesting babies for stem cells. They don't ask for pregnant women to donate their living fetus to die for science, and they don't grow them in a test tube and then stab them in the neck. They only work with already dead embryos. Embryos that died for whatever reason that has nothing to do with stem cells.

You can disagree with someone's choice to abort, regardless of religion. But when it's dead it's dead and would you rather it get thrown in the incinerator or used for the potential well being of fellow humans?

RE: Controversial
By Zstream on 12/30/2009 11:05:02 AM , Rating: 1
How can you post that they are not harvesting babies when you say something like this:

You can disagree with someone's choice to abort, regardless of religion. But when it's dead it's dead and would you rather it get thrown in the incinerator or used for the potential well being of fellow humans?

Yes I would rather see the baby buried and given a funeral.

RE: Controversial
By bighairycamel on 12/30/2009 12:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're speaking with too much emotion and have no idea of the actual procedures. Did you miss where I said they are INCINERATED? Meaning disposed of by fire? There is no burial, and no funeral. They don't work with fetsuses as you picture them... they work with embryos, cultures of them in fact.

People need to get the pyschotic mental image of babies being killed out of their heads. These are embryos barely visible to the naked eye and hardly distinguishable as a "baby". Sure they were alive but like I said, they aren't being killed just so we have stem cells to work with, they are already dead, from what I have read usually do to failed surrogation. So hey we can either a) throw them in the fire or b) clone some of the stem cells for science.......

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 6:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
The use of embryonic stem cells, even from a dead baby that is just going to be incinerated, gives justification for abortion. What’s more, should something actually come from embryonic stem cell research and we suddenly find ourselves in need of steady large supply of embryonic stem cells, the way is paved for women to get pregnant and then sell their unborn children.

As I recall, it was brought up that we do not need any more embryonic stem cells anyway, we can clone the ones we have. The abortion activists were unhappy with this and said we needed to have ‘fresh’ cells. I could be wrong on that, though, I didn’t hear much about it.

RE: Controversial
By TSS on 12/30/2009 2:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Right, you abort a embryo because it's clearly not wanted in a way that's harsh enough to end a human life, then you proceed to hold a funeral for a lost loved one. That's not only illogical, even my emotions are going "huh?".

If any good can come out of an unwanted life, then i say embrace that. Oh, and feeding worms with babies does not qualify for "any good".

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 12/30/2009 7:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Buried and given a funeral? Can you explain why this is a good thing to do at any time? Don't give me emotional crap either, give me a solid, logical reason to do so.

Basically they fill a body with chemicals and throw it in a ditch in a fancy box so it doesn't decay as fast, that is the most disturbing thing I have ever heard. What a horrible waste of money, resources and time. We waste tons of land on this crap that could easily be used as space for homes, hospitals, schools and so on.

I don't think I will ever understand the emotions of my fellow man (I use that phrase lightly).

RE: Controversial
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2009 10:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Take aborted fetuses out of the picture and you'll find few against stem cell research.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 12/30/2009 7:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
It shouldn't matter, the needs of many outweigh the needs of a few. If they found a cure for cancer, but they needed to kill 5 people to make it work, I couldn't imagine anyone being against the sacrifice.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 8:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
and if those 5 people would have been the brightest people ever born... Who not only would have solved all cancer issues but would have developed engines that had no waste and require no fuel.... Then tell me how much did your little sacrifice cost all of mankind? Of course, since you have aged and finished school (I guess here, maybe still in - but for my point you have finished), then if you wish to sacrifice your own life and just end it for science that is your choice, but do not make that choice for someone who has not had the chance to grow up and make these choices.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 1/1/2010 11:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
Babies? I said kill people you moron, where did I specify babies? They could be 90 for all you know.

On that same note, if I meant babies, who is to say they wouldn't grow up to be mass murderers or serial killers? What if they ended up killing all man kind with a virus they engineered? Your pointless one sided "what ifs" are getting tired and rather pathetic as you try to appeal to my emotion.

In other words, don't try to appeal to my emotion as you won't succeed. Dry logic is all I care about. Present a proper argument with no feelings and I will work with it, emotional garbage with be torn asunder.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 9:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
One homeless person has enough organs to save many people and that homeless person is just a burden to society. Should we have the harvesting commence?

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 1/1/2010 11:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you expected me to respond with some emotional crap and in disgust? I have no issues with using the trash of society so contributing members of society can thrive. Just for reference, a few of my family members are what could be considered bums and I would help pull the trigger if it meant a decent, contributing member of society would benefit.

RE: Controversial
By jonmcc33 on 12/30/2009 10:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
You would need to be religious to believe it to be murder, as that would involve believing that every time a being is conceived it has a soul.

If they can save thousands of actual living people by experimenting with embryos that are essentially not even human and haven't taken a breath of air then I don't care.

I also don't perceive abortion to be murder either.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 11:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Then why don't we just do a late term abortion on you and see if you think it not murder at that point we implement the abortion, I bet you change your mind. A fetus has a heart beat, it is full of life... Only death stops that heart, and causing death is murder. Nothing more to talk about... either you agree it is good to murder babies or you do not agree it is good to murder babies. I personally believe it is bad to murder babies, one because of my faith, two because you never know which baby is going to grow up to be a great scientist, leader or whatever... If Mrs. Obama thought your way then BO would have never been alive to run for president. You can like or dislike President Obama, but it is just the truth in todays world his mother would have just had an abortion instead of raising him because it was inconvenience... suggestion, stop thinking only about yourself and start think about the population as a whole and what is best for everyone. Killing off our offspring is not good for the future.

RE: Controversial
By AssBall on 12/30/2009 6:16:43 PM , Rating: 5
Every time you jerk off you kill millions of babies. Some of them are Physicists, some of them are Presidents, some of them are Saints.

Why don't you save them all before you have misguided knee jerk reactions about what other people should be forced to do or not do with their own "property"? Better yet, why don't you stay out of other people's buisness altogether when it doesn't affect you?

I realise this is an extreme portrayal, but please try to put things in perspective. You call 'em babies, I call 'em embryos. Tomayto, tomahto. Chicken embryos are my personal favorite.

RE: Controversial
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/30/2009 6:36:37 PM , Rating: 1
New to science are you AssBall, I can tell by what you say.

First off not a baby until sperm meets and implants into eggs. Then life starts and you have the starts of a Baby - so no jerking off does not kill millions of babies - even my 10 year nephew knows this hence why you must be new to science... And yes it is a baby and I use it on purpose, because people like you can not except the fact it is a human-being we are talking about, and since they can not talk for themselves and defend themselves against heartless savages like yourself no I will not keep to myself in a corn... You can go there
Just a simple fact Abortion is wrong on all levels except in cases where both mother and baby will die if they try to go full term. Your last lines "I realise this is an extreme portrayal, but please try to put things in perspective. You call 'em babies, I call 'em embryos. Tomayto, tomahto. Chicken embryos are my personal favorite." This shows how little respect you have for other people, other lives, and the world around you. You of course will disagree, but that because you do not have a clue about whom or what you are harming. Try and learn from what I'm saying... Promise it will make you a better person.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 12/30/2009 7:45:24 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently you are even more new to science. The item produced when a sperm meets an egg is an embryo which turns into a fetus. It isn't a baby until it is actually born. This is the scientific definition you tool.

Just say the reality of the reason you are against it. You think it has a soul the second it is conceived. You claimed to be Catholic, which means you are the same people who used to have Limbo. Odd how that suddenly disappeared, wonderful how the pope just thinks things into and out of existence. Or a better explanation is it never existed in the first place and he is a liar.

The default state of everything is negative until proven positive, therefore we must assume there is no soul until you show it to exist. You will never find it and will continue to assert your beliefs on others and hope we all just blindly accept.

The fetus has an almost non-existent nervous system in the legal times for abortion, so it feels nothing and nothing is lost. I have a feeling you also believe in fate, but that isn't real either and the baby could easily go from genius to murderer with the wrong environment, so you can't say anything about potential as it has equal potential to become a monster.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 9:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent, adult, these are all words used to describe the different stages in human development. I am not aware that they state the entity is not human until a certain stage.

National Geographic has produced the series ‘In the Womb’. There definitely is a lot going on in the fetus stage. What scientifically defines a person human vs. sub-human (and there for subject to termination)? The Science Czar in the US believes a person doesn’t become ‘human’ until about age 2, opening the door for post-birth abortions.

Where are you from and what is the legal time for abortion there? By the third month movements can begin, there is believed to be brain activity and a nervous system by this time. Here in the US, we certainly have abortions after this point in time. Until 2003 we even had partial-birth abortions.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 1/1/2010 12:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I argue they are not human? I readily admit they are the same species, but they are unformed. There is a reason the other scientific terms exist, cause calling it a human at that point doesn't properly define what it is. An embryo is not a human, it is a lump of cells that will eventually become a human if left to grow, much in the same way a seed is not a plant.

Just as a curiosity, would you consider a cloned human equally so to a non-cloned human?

The fact is if a birth is unwanted and the lump of cells is not fully formed, you are merely stopping the growth before it becomes a conscious human. Humans really don't become coherent beings till around 9 months to a year. They really don't become a formed creature till around 2 years when most of the brain synapses have formed. You put too much stock in what a human is, your brain is nothing more than chemicals and electrical pulses. Everything you feel, think do or are is merely a combination of your environment and how your body reacts to it through pulses and chemicals.

Ever wonder why humans cry? They found when they tested the tears after crying they have a different chemical composition than those of normal tears used for lubrication. They contain chemicals/hormones that affect your mood. You are a glorified machine, get over it. You aren't some magic flower planted by a sky fairy, you are just a lump of cells like any other creature. You are no more special than a single celled organism, merely more complex. In fact, bacteria will outlive you, so in the scheme of things, it seems they have adapted much better than yourself. I have a feeling our self absorption and narcissism for ourselves will turn out to be just a survival mechanism of our species.

Without the use of emotion or religion, clearly define to me why you are somehow more worthy of life than any organism from the smallest single cell to the largest multi-celled organism.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 6:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sperm is just sperm and an egg is just an egg. It is only when they meet that they become something more.

RE: Controversial
By ClownPuncher on 12/30/2009 7:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
A nasty omlette?

RE: Controversial
By drebo on 12/30/2009 1:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need to be religious to think that life starts at conception. I mean, really, just think about the way people talk to a pregnant woman: they don't say "How's your fetus doing?", but rather "How's your baby doing?"

Isn't that, in itself, acknowledgement that what's growing inside a woman's womb is alive? Religion doesn't need to enter into the equation about whether or not an unborn child is "technically alive".

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 12/30/2009 7:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Religion doesn't need to enter into the equation about whether or not an unborn child is "technically alive".

So is a plant. Consensus on something doesn't make it true. The reality is as long as it isn't born, it is a fetus. People will ask how a roast or a cake is doing even before it is either of those things. Does that mean dough is automatically a cake?

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 8:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
I assume by ‘it is a fetus’ you mean less than human. Please elaborate on what scientific evidence this is based on.

RE: Controversial
By GodisanAtheist on 12/30/2009 11:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that it cannot survive independent of its mother's blood supply and other in vivo factors make for a pretty solid claim of "it is a fetus".

It is no more or less human than any other coalition of cells in anyone's body.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 11:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
I’m not arguing what at what stage of life the human is, but rather whether or not it is human. Yes, blood from the unborn child, the fetus, draws nutrients from it’s mother, but it’s blood does not intermingle with the mother’s, it is a separate entity. Once the child is born it may feed from it’s mother’s breast, continuing to draw nutrients from it’s mothers body.

What’s more, while the child is still in it’s mother’s womb, the mother can be killed and the child removed and saved, thus it is more than just a coalition of cells in it’s mother’s body. Unless you are saying all of us are nothing more than a coalition of cells.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 1/1/2010 11:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
I love when people use logical fallacies, it is hilarious to see how truly stupid folks like you are. You are pitiful and driven by emotion.

Now that we have that out of the way, let us go back to the question at hand. You made an assumption and a stupid one at that. Where did I say a fetus isn't part of the Homo Sapian species? On a genetic level it is part of the species, but still unformed. Much like a chicken egg isn't a chicken but it is still part of the same species.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 5:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
If they can save thousands of actual living people by experimenting with embryos that are essentially not even human...

Based on what science are they not human?

RE: Controversial
By PhoenixKnight on 12/30/2009 9:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
You forget that there are a lot of really stupid people out there.

RE: Controversial
By straycat74 on 12/30/2009 9:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
In the same way "illegal immigrants" are ALWAYS shortened to "immigrants".
I was polled once and asked if I was for or against immigration. I asked legal or illegal, and he said it didn't say.

RE: Controversial
By knutjb on 12/30/2009 1:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
Good to see not all got caught up in the religious argument and saw the
Stem cell research is controversial...
for what it was; the media wanting you to think about stories the way THEY believe you should think about them, for they know best. Call ALL stem cell research controversial when only one small segment is truly controversial in a vain attempt to minimize outrage against the outrageous.

Repeat something enough, truthful or not, and it might become a pseudo fact just like like your immigration point.

RE: Controversial
By Chiisuchianu on 12/30/2009 3:32:11 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct, the only controversy lied in embryonic stem cells. We haven't needed to use embryonic stem-cells for a long time now and in fact embryonic stem-cells are inferior as our bodies may reject it as a foreign substance. Liberals just like to bring it up so people will join their crusade against religion, conservatives, etc.

RE: Controversial
By AstroCreep on 12/30/2009 4:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
In regards to "Stem Cells" in and of themselves, yes, "Embryonic" are the cause of all the controversy, but there are people who further the stem cell argument by saying "No one should be playing God".
Those people are usually the same people who take issue with the embryonic stem cells, so there's really no winning against them.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 6:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the people I know of that know the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell only have a problem with embryonic stem cells. The big problem is the media blurring the two. This article, for instance, would have you believe that the controversy is with all stem cells and doesn’t even mention that there is a difference. The article on the stem cell technology used to repair eye damage has the title ‘New Stem Cell Therapy Restores Vision in Damaged Eye’, not bothering to mention until reading the article that adult stem cells are used.

RE: Controversial
By Gzus666 on 12/30/2009 7:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because no one cares which they are except psychos. If someone takes cells from an adult or an already dead fetus that would have ended up in an incinerator, it doesn't matter. They are not aborting fetuses or killing grown babies to get the stem cells, that has never and obviously will never happen, they are merely using the left overs rather than letting them go to waste.

RE: Controversial
By Nimmist on 12/30/2009 9:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, people do care. Pro-abortionists care because they see it as validating abortion. Anti-abortionists care because it is yet another excuse to kill an unborn child.

While there currently isn’t much of a market for embryonic stem cells, if there were and demand for embryonic stem cells dramatically increased, we very well could see women getting pregnant only to have an abortion to sell the remains.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis
Related Articles

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki