What are you reasons for not supporting stem cell research? Please explain.?
969469
I support stem cell research.\nI vehemently oppose Federal Funding (taxpayer) for stem cell research.  There is no more important right on this planet than private property rights (my money).  There will always be some worthy cause that politicians will use to spend "federal funds", and the slow erosion of private property rights for "worthy causes" will only make things worse.\n\n.
814963
Yes.  Governments fund all sorts of medical research projects as it is, so why not allow stem cell research to be a part of that?   \n\nIf you say "no" to stem cell research funded by governments because of tax money being spent as the issue (and not an objection because of moral grounds), then you should just say "no" to all research medical research by governments.  In this case, the issue appears to be that taxes should not be used for government funded medical research.  I think it extremely short-sighted.
87367
Lots of people just resist any new ideas......just because..(they will find an excuse).\nStem cells research could benefit so many people !
406585
Scientists are leagues away from using stem cells to produce organs.  Below are a few sites that will help you understand where the field is now, and how far we have yet to go:\n\nhttp://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Bioengineering/StemCells/\nhttp://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm
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.
831390
no it does not matter, while everyone is ok with adult stem cell, the liberals attack the republicans because they are not for embryonic stem cell research being paid for by tax dollars)\n\nThey merely make it sound like we are against all research which is not the truth, only the funding for embyonic
719674
It is. The area of dispute is public funding vs. private funding. Currently only adult stem cells and a few fetal stem cell lines, most of which are unusable, are allowed to be used by firms with public funding.\n\nThe problem with the embryonic stem cell research debate is that too many people equate it with abortion. For years, publicly-funded researchers have been trying to use embryos from fertility clinics. The way the current law is, the ones that are not implanted in a woman are discarded - thrown in the trash. I see this as unethical. Why discard them when they can be used on possibly life-saving research? Who supports embryonic stem-cell research? People as diverse as Michael J Fox, Nancy Reagan, Curt Shilling, Muhammad Ali, Arlen Specter, and my father, who passed 4 years ago from Lou Gherigs disease.\n\nI feel it is unethical to discard something that could potentially save lives simply because of misinformation.\n\nPluripotent stem cells, those from embryos, are able to develop into all the different types of cells in the body and multiply rapidly. \n\nAdult stem cells, or multipotent stem cells, that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Also, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.\n\nThere is a really good paper on this at The Michael J Fox Foundation website called "Q&A Embryonic Stem Cells; Exploding the Myth" (see link)
520604
i dont' suggest it. do you want to use stem cells to help yourself when they had to kill babies to get it? i wouldn't. i'm sorry for your MS though. truly.
773822
A stem cell is a cell that hasn't been differentiated yet.  Meaning it is not yet a skin, brain, liver, heart, muscle, etc. cell.  They are mostly found in embryos because they obviously are still developing so there is a large amount of stem cells there.  Adults also have stem cells in our bone marrow because that is the site of blood cell synthesis (we are constantly making new blood cells).  \nStem cell research is important in finding out how to differentiate cells into what we want.  This would be nice for making new organs for transplants or even new skin for grafts.  I'm not sure if we can use the stem cells from adults or not, but as far as i know, in the US we are not allowed to use new stem cells for research, only the ones we already have. \nIn my opinion, since there are abortions already being performed (no matter what your opinion of it, it's being done) , instead of just wasting the embryo/fetus, we should at least put it to good use and use it for research to help others.
1129900
Some people just need to fight something, for a lack of a better purpose in life.\n\nFoetus and stem cell research can allow to re-grow damaged/amputed organs or maybe even entire limbs.
871453
To one of the posters before me, I can only say that some people need to get educated before telling others to check their facts!  Most embryonic stem cell research is done on the stem cells of embryos that would have been discarded anyway; fertility clinics routinely thrash embryos that aren't showing satisfactory growth rates suitable for In vitro.  So the embryo dies no matter what!  Might as well put the tissue to use so that the death isn't in vain--who knows how many lives the research on one embryo could save?  And as far as grouping OTHER stem cell research into this whole "morality" issue... I'd hope these soapbox preachers realize that blood cells come from stem cells that are produced by bone marrow--and we all have 'em.  No lives (other than cellular) are lost for research--and many bone marrow transplant patients owe their lives to what's been done so far.  Blood stem cells aren't capable of forming anything other than blood cells, while embryonic stem cells have the potential of becoming any of the body's tissues.  Honest to goodness, do a little research!\n\nNOW, to answer the question asked... yeah, I think he'll veto it.  He'll kick himself if he or someone he loves becomes ill with a disease that might have been curable if he'd have actually helped the research.  But for now, I'd see him standing on the Biblewagon and doing whatever he can to make sure nothing useful happens.  (Kind of like he's been doing from day one, eh?)
946154
I'm against socialized medicine for the same reason I'm against socialism, it destroys competition, incentive and thereby thwarts advancement. Look at England and Canada where people have to wait years for needed procedures if they ever get them. I do believe that we should provide healthcare for everyone regardless of their ability to pay but I want the system to remain capitalist to preserve competition, quality and availability. \n\nI'm not against anything that holds the promise of improving the course, quality or length of someone's life. I think genetics and stem cell research are the most promising research areas for certain cancer treatments and nerve damage. I do believe that we need to stay away from creating designer children or cloning for specific traits but other than that, I'm for everything. While I don't like the idea of abortion, I don't believe it should be illegal. I appreciate that those who are opposed based upon religious beliefs don't want their tax dollars used for such purposes because it forces them to participate in something sinful. But, we have to make health services equally available to everyone, don't we????\n\nOh well I think I've rambled long enough.......\n\nCheers
282691
I agree too many! And you others are wrong, stem cell research is still done in privately funded centers, only government funded centers cannot perform stem cell research! Nancy Reagen funds a privately owned  research center
777116
ETHICAL ISSUES:  First off, the people in general who have ethical issues with gene testing/sequencing/therapy a lot of the time are uneducated in this field and also have strong religious beliefs.   Gene testing is done a lot of the times in genetic counselling for people who want to know if they will pass down a genetic disorder...I suppose people have issues with this because this leads the the question of abort or not to abort when it comes to an "imperfect" child.  I personally thing gene therapy is an amazing field which will continue to grow, however some people may see this as interfering with what "nature" has planned.  Some of the ethical issues have to do with stem cell research, since these cells are taken from fetuses.  Obviously people who do not believe in abortions are usually against this.  However, you do not have to abort a baby in order to do this kind of research...it can be done with misscarried babies etc etc.  Like I said, they do not know all the "science" behind.\nPOTENTIAL USES: Gene therapy is HUGE right now because it could lead to potential cures for things like organ failure (especially with cloning).  Imagine this...you are on the list for a heart transplant but instead of getting someone elses heart, you recieve your very own cloned heart.  Why is this a good thing?  This is a genetic copy of your own flesh and blood AND you do not have to take immunosupressive drugs for the rest of your life.  Might I add...the average lifespan for a heart transplant is about 10 years...with your "own" heart you might live into your senior years.  Another big thing with gene therapy is the ability to produce genes which are defective in your body normally. For example, people who have diabetes are unable to metabolize sugar properly...so with gene therapy, they are hoping to eventually be able to replace that defective gene with a good one so these people will no longer need to take insulin.\nMany many other things...but hope these are good for you.
359710
It's not so much the acutal medical risks, but the ehtical and moral implications of conducting research in the field.\n\nThe following is an excerpt from a research paper I recently wrote concerning stem cell research:\n\nEmbryonic stem cell research raises immense ethical and religious concern:\nThe issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths- even many of the same faith- coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions. (“Bush Embryonic Stem Cell Decision” 1)\nQuite often, the status of an embryo is debated among scientists, politicians, theologians, philosophers, and even everyday people. There are many ideas circulating the globe as some vie to protect the embryo and others hope to use it to benefit society. Those that oppose stem cell research claim that the methods scientists use are not morally justifiable. Human embryos, in their minds, are “not mere biological tissues or clusters of cells; they are the tiniest of human beings” (Espejo 49). According to the Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics Commission, the embryo should be considered a living organism from its earliest stages (Espejo 46-50). People therefore claim that scientists are alienating the rights of living human beings by performing experiments on embryos: \nThe painful lessons of the past should have taught us that human beings must not be conscripted for research without their permission- no matter what the alleged justification- especially when that research means the forfeiture of their health or lives. Even if an individual’s death is believed to be otherwise imminent, we still do not have a license to engage in lethal experimentation- just as we may not experiment on death row prisoners or harvest their organs without their consent. (Espejo 49)\nThe widespread Christian view that life begins at the moment of conception has caused many to believe that the destruction of the human embryo is murder (Espejo 4). People also believe that is irrelevant whether the embryos are capable of implanting in a uterus and developing, as they are embryos nonetheless (Morris 2). As Morris questions, “are we willing to recognize life, even if it’s living in a Petri dish?” (2). Those that sympathize with these concerns feel that research requiring the destruction of a human embryo should be banned. Others argue that since IVF procedures often generate more embryos than needed, the excess embryos should be used for potentially life-saving research rather than being discarded (Espejo 36-37). Also, they claim embryos do not have the same rights as adult humans. The suggestion that a mass of 50-100 cells with no heart and no brain is entitled to the same protections is “unprecedented and not embodied in American law” (Espejo 38). With this in mind, it seems that embryonic stem cell research should not be undermined by the aforementioned arguments. There are additional concerns however. The use of SCNT is often criticized by those opposed to cloning, as a majority of people view cloning as morally wrong.  SCNT has been used in reproductive cloning, such as the cloning of Dolly the sheep. In the public’s mind, the distinction between this form of cloning and therapeutic cloning, which involves SCNT used for medical purposes, has blurred. The two should not be confused however, as they are completely separate procedures. Outlawing the use of SCNT would prevent the development of very promising techniques for curing disease
711296
The single factor in stem cell research that has many pro-lifers protesting is that they believe that doctors are harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses.  It is time for us to clear things up. It would not be a realistic suggestion to take stem cells from aborted fetuses.  In order to extract the stem cells in this manner, a doctor would have to use time consuming and not always fail-safe surgical techniques. There are also logical difficulties, as most of the cells found in an aborted fetus have already matured into adult cells because they are far beyond the blastocyst stage.  These would not only have no ability to multiply in culture, but may force the embryonic stem cells to transform into other cells prematurely. The only real source of uninhibited, pure pluripotent stem cells is a cellular blastocyst that is only 5-7 days old. These cells are left over from in vitro fertilizations, and would be discarded anyway. They should be the supply of stem cells because they are more ethical, practical, and available than aborted babies.