Moral points on embryonic stem cell reasearch?
374875
For embyronic stem cell:\nit will provide many cures for possibly many diseases and conditions such as diabetes and paralysis, it has proven to be effective so far and can better the lives of many, it is the cutting edge of modern medicine\n\nAgainst:\nThere are other methods of stem cell research using adult stem cells that won't use embryos at all, many believe that killing the embryos just for their stem cells is not moral, the eventual result of stem cell research could be overcrowding due to increased life span for many and/or cloning which is an issue that is also very controversial
223925
A lot of them are ethical and moral questions.   For example, if you were going to use cloned human cells for testing of a drug, where would you draw the line?  Somewhere between a cell and a fully grown human, but who gets to make that decision of where?\n\nOr a more far out question: Imagine if you could clone your favorite movie star, celebrity or anyone else to be your husband or wife?   How many copies of the same person would we have roaming around?   And even so, would that person want to be your husband and wife anyway?  Who would be that person's parents or next of kin?   Do you really have a right to "create" that person or treat them like property?  Are they a person?   \n\nDo you see how the idea of human cloning creates a lot of issues that wouldn't otherwise exist?
757631
Stem cells are cell in the humane body that have not yet been defined. meaning they have not developed to the point of of becoming an organized mass called tissue such as muscle tissue  or skin tissue or nerve tissue. This is important because researchers are investigating ways to coax stem cells into developing  into specific types of tissue  within the body  to aid in the cure of injuries and disease. For example if someones spinal cord was cut and you could get stem cells to develop into spinal cord tissue to repair the damage . this has actually been demonstrated in mice. now this is somewhat of an oversimplification but you get the idea.\n\nNow as stated by previous answers there are 2 types of stem cells Adult and Embryonic. The controversy is over the use of Embryonic stem cells. there are several ethical debates that arise from embryonic stem cells..\n1.Obviously by their nature they are derived from embryos or fertilized eggs. Now those believing that life begins at inception (such as myself) think that is destruction of viable life and object on these grounds.. Others say there are thousands of embryos created for in-vitro fertilization and many go unused and likely will never be implanted so why not get some good from them. To better illustrate my position let me paint a slightly different picture. Let say one person had a unique  immune system that created antibodies that would attack and destroy all types of cancer.. Obviously these cells would be useful to curing those afflicted. Now would it be ethical to pass a law requiring that individual to donate blood and tissue against his will so that thousands could be cured. Worse yet would it be ethical to require that individual to submit cells for cloning  so even more could be cured. this brings us to the second Issue\n2. The second way to to get embryonic stem cells is by cloning and harvesting the stem cells before the embryo develops into  a fetus. The moral and ethical implications here are obvious. you might call this the production line approach and the very idea is intolerable to many people.\n3. Lastly, Once use of embryonic stem cell is deemed acceptable would it be legal to sell ones eggs much like people sell plasma today.Currently there is no prohibition on the practice  and it would likely be used. Realizing that the female body produces a finite supply of eggs determined at birth the use of financial incentives to induce women likely poor woman to donate raises it's own ethical questions \n\nCurrently federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on new embryo's is banned. the government has made an exception for a few strains of cells that were developed prior to the funding ban. This ban is not on research but on federal funding the private sector as well as state funding wholly with state dollars is still legal\nAs far as Adult stem cell research goes there are no restrictions I know of\nSo there you have the debate in a nutshell as for yourself you have to decide on your own ethics. I have tried to give as unbiased a coverage as I can detailing the pertinent facts.
429285
In some cases, yes. As can be seen with the stem cell debates that started a few years back. \n\nIt isn't just religion though, it is general social standards and responsibilities in general that can determine what is right and what is wrong when it comes to certain research.
726039
Depends on which stem cell research you are talking about!
1121552
I am 100% against it. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with all the technology that we have today there is another way than by harvesting embroyos. Whether  America would like to admit that an embryo is a living being or not, the fact still remains that it is. I am confident that God will supply us the knowledge and ability to reproduce stem cells another way.\n\n\nhttp://www.stemcellresearch.org/\n\n\nhttp://www.biblebelievers.com/AllThis.html
748163
I had been watching the election updates all night. I live near St. Louis. \n\nI'm not entirely sure about my stance on embryonic stem cell research. However, it's helpful in other ways.\n\nThe scientists and doctors who have been researching it have been under threat for the past several years from bills that people have been trying to pass in Jefferson County and elsewhere. The governor of Illinois was trying to take advantage of that by trying to persuade some of Missouri's best doctors and other researchers to come work in Illinois where stem cell research isn't under threat. \n\nBy the stem cell initiative passing, it has taken a weight off of the shoulders of some of Missouri's best doctors and those who were considering a doctoral career in Missouri. Now, our best doctors can stay in Missouri and continue doing their research and attempts by people of other states to exploit Missouri's flaws to get them to leave Missouri and work in their states will be a lot less tempting.\n\nTherefore, the stem cell initiative's passing has helped ensure that Missouri can continue to have some of the top health care professionals and reasearchers in the country and the people of Missouri will continue to receive top quality health care from highly trained professionals.
709278
i read the other posts and its strange but they totally disregard the facts !  nasal stem cells are compatible with all organs and usages, that what the newest paper released in the stem cell research fields says anyway, and the leading scientist said that embryonic was  not the only way that in the field it was the most convenient.  several of the ppl who responded just totally blew off the facts and said the nasal stem cells were for only a limited use and others supported the embryonic only because thats what they think works...neither view base on the facts. personally i think some ppl just don't want to know the truth. stem cell research is changing daily and for the person who said there is no funding they certainly don't know anything about it because millions was given last year alone in govt. grants, private companies and personal donations to this research. for once i'd like to see someone tell the truth with out bending it to fit their agenda. thanks for just pointing out the facts without being biased, i wish more ppl would do that.
889100
I doubt there are many stem cell researchers reading your question. You would need to checkout recent articles and news stories on the subject.
843153
yeh i'd accept it, and i'd donate my eggs to find the cures if it was legal here. Those who are against stem cell research and cause all the problems to medical scientist trying to find cures, should also give up their right to be saved when the cures are established.
292014
Most so called Proponents of Abortion will say, "I believe its a woman's right, but I would never do it."  I don't think anyone deep down can say they truly believe abortion is moral.  We live in an immoral world where the accused have more rights than the innocent victims.\n\nAbortion is a multimillion dollar industry.  The doctors are paid a bundle to get rid of a "problem" and the embryo is sold for stem cell research, when there are other more humane resources for research.\n\nThey also are now either currently or about to start creating embryo's to use in stem cell research.  Creating life to kill and salvage for medical advancement.  \n\nWe live in a sick society.
765492
A stem cell is essentially a cell with potential; it hasn’t yet become a specific, ‘useful’ cell. Stem cells are capable of becoming a variety of ‘useful’ cells. For example, a blood stem cell may become any type of blood cell, such as red or white. The basis of stem cell use in medicine is to manipulate their growth into tissues which people have lost through injury or disease, such as loss of certain brain cells in Parkinson’s disease, and thereby treat diseases previously considered incurable.\n\nTHERE ARE INFACT TWO TYPES OF STEM CELL undergoing medical research: Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) and Adult Stem Cells (ASCs). \n\nASCs are taken from a human adult, and usually either transplanted to another part of the body, or artificially encouraged to grow to greater numbers. ESCs are taken from human embryos which have been created artificially. Under the right conditions, these cells can then be grown in a lab, and if given the appropriate chemical signals, can be manipulated to become virtually any type of cell imaginable. In either case the aim is to replace tissues lost through disease.\n\nThose opposed to the use of ESCs strongly advocate the use of ASCs. However, many scientists believe that ASCs are ultimately less useful medically, as they cannot replace all types of cells. They exist in very small amounts and are therefore hard to find, and in extremely limited supply if wanted for transplantation on a large scale. They are also difficult to grow in culture. By contrast, ESCs are easy to isolate, grow and manipulate, and have a greater variety of uses. Thus, they are favoured by scientists as a medical tool. As ASCs come directly from the adult patient, there is essentially no controversy, as there are no life-issues at stake. It is the use of ESCs which\nis the cause of the debate, as it involves artificially creating a human embryo, harvesting the cells and then destroying the embryo. The moral objections to this revolve around a fundamental question - when does a group of cells constitute a human life? Put simply, are we playing God, and it is morally acceptable for us to do so? There has been no definitive conclusion, and the argument continues.\n\nThe variety of diseases which can potentially be treated with ESCs is huge, ranging from degenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, to diabetes, and even cancer. If successful, it could be the greatest reliever of human suffering since the introduction of antibiotics. However,\nthe moral arguments surrounding their use do not look set to be resolved any time soon. Regardless, the immense potential medical benefits cannot be ignored, and so research continues amidst the controversy.
1182372
The one poster noted rejection issues, and there are numerous ones. Naturally, animal organ transplantation can never replace human organ transplantation (though stem cell research does offer some hope to replace the latter in 50-100 years).\n\nIt is moral to sacrifice an animal life to save a human life from the perspective that a human life is more valuable than that of an animal
947970
I agree...I believe that in the proper hands, this could solve many health issues. As with everything else, even good things in the wrong hands, can get ugly...but that's not reason enough NOT to benefit society.\nI was asked many years ago to participate in a survey of 12 people in a room, ( including a man in a religious order) and we all gave pros and cons on why we thought they either should or shouldn't do stem cell research...Most of us concluded that it would be a benefit to society.
846528
I'm still undecided on stem cell therapy.  As of right now, I'm not down with cutting up an embryo for the sake of someone else.  BUT if someone in my family were to get sick and could benefit from stem cells, I'm sure I'd be all for it.  (so what, I'm a hypocrite :)\n\nAnd cloning people is just stupid.  Why would you do that? We already have enough people running around this world.  It's a waste.  And it would morally wrong to clone ppl just for their organs.  So, again, NO on the cloning.
238795
Stem cells are primal undifferentiated cells which retain the ability to differentiate into other cell types. This ability allows them to act as a repair system for the body, replenishing other cells as long as the host organism is alive.\n\nMedical researchers believe stem cell research has the potential to change the face of human disease by being used to repair specific tissues or to grow organs. Yet as government reports point out, "significant technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research."\n\nThere are three types of stem cells: embryonic, adult and cord blood. Right to life and many religious groups have ethical problems with embryonic programs because it involves destroying surplus embryos from IVF programs.
805439
I'm sorry, but some of the answers on here are utterly wrong in terms of science - there is a very big difference between stem cells from embryos, and stem cells from places like bone marrow.\n\nTHERE ARE INFACT TWO TYPES OF STEM CELL undergoing medical research: Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) and Adult Stem Cells (ASCs). \n\nASCs are taken from a human adult (eg from bone marrow), and usually either transplanted to another part of the body, or artificially encouraged to grow to greater numbers. ESCs are taken from human embryos which have been created artificially. Under the right conditions, these cells can then be grown in a lab, and if given the appropriate chemical signals, can be manipulated to become virtually any type of cell imaginable. In either case the aim is to replace tissues lost through disease.\n\nThose opposed to the use of ESCs strongly advocate the use of ASCs. However, many scientists believe that ASCs are ultimately less useful medically, as they cannot replace all types of cells. Blood stem cells can only become blood cells. They exist in very small amounts and are therefore hard to find, and in extremely limited supply if wanted for transplantation on a large scale. They are also difficult to grow in culture. By contrast, ESCs are easy to isolate, grow and manipulate, and have a greater variety of uses. Thus, they are favoured by scientists as a medical tool. \n\nAs ASCs come directly from the adult patient, there is essentially no controversy, as there are no life-issues at stake. It is the use of ESCs which is the cause of the debate, as it involves artificially creating a human embryo, harvesting the cells and then destroying the embryo. The moral objections to this revolve around a fundamental question - when does a group of cells constitute a human life? Put simply, are we playing God, and it is morally acceptable for us to do so? There has been no definitive conclusion, and the argument continues.\n\nThe variety of diseases which can potentially be treated with ESCs is huge, ranging from degenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, and even cancer. If successful, it could be the greatest reliever of human suffering since the introduction of antibiotics. To give some examples: A univeristy research team in America is close to creating a CURE to diabetes. Stem cells can be encouraged to produce insulin. These can then be transplanted into the patient, and they will never have to inject themselves with insulin again!! Another research team, in the UK, has managed to get stem cells to grow into liver tissue. This tissue can be used to test new drugs, so removing some of the need for animal testing - something I think most people would like to see! In the future, we will be able to grow whole organs for people!!\n\nI would like to point out that aborted babies are NOT used for stem cell research. The embryos are created in the lab, and growth is stopped when it reaches 8 cells. This way, all the cells are still stem cells, and so useful. Babies which have been aborted are far too large and devoloped to be useful in this way.\n\nHowever, the moral arguments surrounding their use do not look set to be resolved any time soon. Regardless, the immense potential medical benefits cannot be ignored. It is my view that the research should be allowed to continue, as it could help people in so many ways. Those who are opposed do not have to make use of the treatments once they become available, like Jehova's Wittnesses, who refuse blood transfusions because it against their beliefs. But I belive in giving people the choice.