What do you guys think about it? ---------- Personally, I think that banning government funding for it is stupid and close-minded. There are many other ways to acquire embryonic stem cells without harming embryos; stem cells are abundant in the blood of umbilical cords, and can be attained easily from dedifferentiation. Sure, the other methods aren't perfect, but the problems with them are easily fixed with enough time and money. Also, it is important to remember that cells can be obtained by using frozen embryos that are just slated to be thrown away. Also, they have the potential to cure a good deal of the diseases that plague us today, like diabetes and certain forms of cancer. Of course, there needs to be time to perfect treatment, and funding, but if worked on enough, it could be one of the most valuable forms of medicine.
I completely agree. I see few down sides to stem cell research especially whenn balanced with the huge number of benefits in the cures to diseases. As you stem cells can be gained from embryo's left spare from things like IVF which would other wise be thrown out. More money is needed to fund research into this.
And very little progress has been made in resent years...
That's because of the Bush-era laws prevent government funding for the research. In my contemporary issues class, we were reading an article. A lady who was conducting research at a privately-funded lab, but who was also working for a university, lost all of her very important stem cell cultures because of a power outage. The university lab had a backup generator for it's freezers, but the lab she was working out of did not, and in a single moment, thanks to the laws set in place by the Bush administration, years of her research were lost.
That's years that were spent trying to bring us closer to eradicating diseases that plague millions worldwide. Shame.
I agree with thisisnotanalt. Stem cell research could prove to be very fruitful, leading to many cures. But the government should stop using embryos. Is it not enough that we have abortion, but we must also kill babies for scientific research? I know that sacrifices must be made but that is going WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too far.
Is it not enough that we have abortion, but we must also kill babies for scientific research?
The fetuses being used were already aborted; nobody was forcing the women to terminate their pregnancies for the sake of scientific research. Anyways, scientists in Japan have found new methods to turn alternate forms of stem cells into embryonic stem cells-the type which hold the potential to cure all the diseases.
Is it not enough that we have abortion, but we must also kill babies for scientific research?
Stem cell researchers are not killing babies or fetuses. They are using human embryos which are in no way fetuses or babies. They haven't been aborted, nor would we want to use stem cells from aborted babies for obvious ethical reasons. Unfortunately, many people in the United States don't understand what an embryo is, what a stem cell is, and how this research is being done or is applicability. And yet, people still find it necessary to have a commentary on the subject despite their heinous ignorance. Here is a link to how stem cells and the associated research work for any of you who would like to be knowledgeable about the subject. Recent, President Obama has lifted the Bush-era ban on government funding of stem cell research. So more to the point, does this move indicate a shift in the ethical concerns, or public opinion of stem cell research? Or perhaps this is a huge mistake and the other countries that have been doing research for the past decade or so are all going to hell... Thoughts?
I personally don't think that this is the route that America should be taking, even though I have had family members who could have definitely used the treatments that it is supposed to be able to cure eventually. Still I think if my life was on the line due to my belief in god I would probably decline a treatment like this.
First of all, this topic has been discussed THOROUGHLY at some point here on AG (Zootsuit_riot, I believe you and I were both in to our knees on that thread). Second, why are we bringing up abortion? Stem cell research, and cultivation of embryos have nothing to do with abortion, (unless you're talking about alternative methods to obtaining embryonic stem cells). My stance is pro-research, but I do think there's a fine line to the measures of procuring embryos specifically. Like everything else, there needs to be rules setup (most probably by the government, or some other governing body) to make sure procedures are as moral and just as possible, not to mention safe and efficient.
I really don't see what people are complaining about. If we are going to follow in this logic that a cell that could have the potential of being a baby someday shouldn't be destroyed, why don't we put every woman on earth in jail?
Because according to your logic they each murder a baby once a month.
I personally don't think that this is the route that America should be taking, even though I have had family members who could have definitely used the treatments that it is supposed to be able to cure eventually. Still I think if my life was on the line due to my belief in god I would probably decline a treatment like this.
Did you read my first post? I mentioned other ways of getting stem cells, ways that are more effective and may even get more cells. So. . .why? Because you think all embryos have a soul? Because there is a good chance that embryos may become a secondary source of stem cells if we perfect dedifferentiation.
I thought the soul was linked to having blood. As far as I knwo embryos don;t have blood. I dont see how you can put a bunch of cells higher than how ever many humans can be saved with the treatment stem cells can provide.
I'm not sure where you got this information, but it seems to lead to some absurdities. Catholics maintain the soul is created at the moment of conception, but the embryo does not have blood at this point (as you mentioned). On the other side is a dead adult who still has blood inside of them and yet does not have a soul. It seems that having blood and having a soul are unrelated.
But let's keep in mind here the fate of these embryos in fertility clinics: they are going to be destroyed after their "expiration date". If an embryo is going to be destroyed either way, why not help a human that is alive and is suffering?
But let's keep in mind here the fate of these embryos in fertility clinics: they are going to be destroyed after their "expiration date". If an embryo is going to be destroyed either way, why not help a human that is alive and is suffering?
One of my main points. Also, it is important to remember that adult stem cells are not nearly as flexible as embryonic ones; and have a very narrow application outside of medicine. Dedifferentiation is technically counted as embryonic, because it reverts adult cells back to embryonic stem cells. --------- I'm fairly knowledgeable about this; I did an eight week research project on stem cell research.
