Isnt stem cell research immoral?

Question

From what I understand scientists create an embryo, which is later destroyed in order to find cures for parkinson and Alzheimers. But I dont think I would want to live longer, so that something that is created would be destroyed. Also would this treatment be only available to the rich?

Answer 1

Is it more moral to allow them to be used in potentially life-saving research, or to just throw them in the trash, like they do now?

silencedo-gooder (I love your screen name) nailed down the scientific details very well.

Those equating the current debate with abortion, or who say 'they abuse little babies and then kill them" are ignorant and mis-informed. The bill Bush vetoed simply would have allowed federal money to be used in research that would be conducted on 5 or 6 day old fetuses from fertility clinics that would normally be destroyed. These are called "blastocysts" and consist of 100-150 cells that have been frozen for possible implantation via invitro-fertilization. Once the donor has a child, these blastocysts (usually 10-20 of them) are usually destroyed. Over 20,000 of them are destroyed every year.

Four and a half years ago, my father lost his battle with Lou Gehrig's Disease. I am in favor of stem cell research because I believe, as do 80+ Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed on to this bill, stem cells were his (and millions of others) last hope. Never mind that the cells that would be used are discarded by fertility clinics every day. Never mind that every day the federal government withholds the funding that could lead to a cure for the disease that destroyed my fathers life. No one can take away our hope for a cure that, although too late for my father, may save countless other lives.

So, over the next year 20,000 blastocycts will be thrown in the trash because Bust is too ignorant to allow researchers to use them.

The lack of compassion and morality in this administration would be laughable if only it didn't hurt so damn much.

Answer 2

The main reason there is a big debate over the use of stem cells is that these cells can come from an embryo. To many people, an embryo is a living human being and destroying an embryo for any reason is morally unacceptable. People on the other side of the debate point out that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure most diseases and the embryos used would have been discarded by fertility clinics anyway.

Not all stem cells can form a human -
When the embryo is less than four days old, its cells are called totipotent stem cells -- that is, they have "total potential" and can form a human being if they were separated and implanted individually into a woman's uterus.

After four or five days, the cells are pluripotent -- that is, they still have the potential to form virtually every cell in the body but can no longer form an entire human being by themselves. As the cells continue to divide into more cells, they become multipotent -- that is, they have the potential to form several different kinds of cells, but not all kinds of cells.

These three types -- totipotent, pluripotent and multipotent -- are the three basic types of stem cells. (Most adult stem cells are multipotent and can form a limited number of cell types.)

It seems that stem cell treatments would be done in a way and in a place that you are already familiar with: either at the doctor's office or in the hospital and after FDA approval become widely available.

Answer 3

Stem cell research leads to cures for something as big as Cancer. With that solved, there'd be no more suffering through health. You'll want it when someone you love passes away of a disease that could've been cured.

The embryo's that are destroyed are stem cells... meaning that have no differentiated into a type of cell. It's like destroying the thing that is less than a seed. Only like 1/100000 stem cells are organs for humans, so it's really not a chance... plus they havent differentiated, so it isn't technically a person/living/human or anything.

Seems people against science want to die of skin diseases because they hate science... even more ironically, they say this when the ozone layer is fading which means your odds of skin cancer raise to 30% from 10% in 1990. Pretty unbelievable. And then they cry when someone dies of a disease that they tried to stop research for in finding a cure. It baffles me.

Answer 4

ok, scientists to create an embryo for the purpose of harvesting the stem cells from it. they use these stem cells to find different ways of treating genetic diseases like parkinsons and alzheimers so people can have a better quality of life. youre not going to live much longer if you dont get alzheimers, or even cancer, but you wont be in a hospital bed for nearly as long. this treatment would be available for everyone once it becomes established medical practice, which, if it works, would be extremely quickly. its just that our president feels the need to save unwanted eggs and sperm (which we have in a HUGE abundance) for nothing while they could be used to cure the diseases that your grandmother is suffering from right now.

Answer 5

Well, you have successfully over simplified the issue. Start with the fact that the labs currently have hundreds of thousands of embryos that unless used are going to be destroyed. So you and your kind think that it is better to destroy these little potential creatures than to harvest stem cells from them?
The way you put it, we are killing children and harvesting cells from them.
I am not rich and yet I look forward to medical science coming up with cures for the maladies you mention. Not for my own life, but for the benefit of all mankind.
You are mistaken, right along with George W Bush, who has overlooked the obvious since day one.

Answer 6

Embryonic stem cell research is immoral, because they abuse little babies and then kill them. Adult stem cell research is just fine. Scientifically speaking, no good has come from embryonic stem cell research. Despite what you may have heard, when you are using embryos for research, they are in higher demand, and the possibility of abortion ending is next to none. So if you have the opporitunity, vote no.

Answer 7

From what I understand,scientists get the cells from aborted embryos (this is where the problem is) and the the cells are cultivated into whatever is needed to attempt tio possibly cure whatever is ailing.

The treatment prob. would be only available to the wealthy, because knowing the HMOs, they aren't going to cover it, esp. to begin with.

Answer 8

Yes! You know, there have been findings that stem cells from adults would work just as well. Why not use these or those from the umbilical cord of a newborn? I don't agree with using human embryos.

Answer 9

no, not all stem cell research is on embryos. And, the idea is that someday, they'll know enough about it to not have to use embryos. What about cancer? People die very young of cancer, people like my grandfather who died at 39. I may get skin cancer, my dad may get skin cancer, not because of lack of preventitive care, but merely because of genes. I'd like to live past 39 thank you.

Answer 10

Except for Jesus dying to save all of humanity I would not want another to die to save just my life and that is what will happen with stem cell research in my opinion.