my question is, why do peple want to kill a living being to get the stem cell. adult stem cells do just as much and nobody is killed. im not a republican, but it seems to be a common sense answer. i mean, killing babies to get the stem cell for research is a lot like ripping someones heart out where they stand to see how it pumps. its ridiculous. also, to say something, i admit that cells in a human body r not life, except at conception because its the earliest stage of life. i also admit that it has many uses, but in reality embryonic stem cell research is just murder, and a good alternative is adult stem cell research, which is much more moral. as a note, i normally hate bush, but he was right on this one. i do not want my tax dollars going to the killing of innocent PEOPLE. now if only he could pull our troops back. what do u think on this issue, please be detailed.
2006-07-21 07:52:12 · 24 answers · asked by the fonz 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
There are different types of stem cells, hence the term embryonic. The 2 most common types are pluripotent and multipotent.
Pluripotent (embryonic) stem cells can differentiate into cells derived from the three germ layers.
Multipotent (adult and/or cord blood) stem cells can produce only cells of a closely related family of cells.
Cord blood stem cells have been used to treat a variety of blood related illnesses, from Aplastic anemia to Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Adult stem cells uses are still being researched. The problems with adult stem cells are:
-Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify
=They contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in DNA replication the course of a lifetime.
-They are limited in what they can produce because they have already been "programmed" to a certain degree.
HR 810 has nothing to do with abortion or the killing of innocent babies. The embryos that it calls for using were created in a laboratory, not through conception. No "pregnancy" was aborted. If they are not to be used, they are deemed "medical waste" and disposed of.
I am opposed to abortion, also. What I am not opposed to is using laboratory creationsthat are scheduledto be destroyed to possibly save someones life.
Reading back through the responses here, I can't believe how many people have formed opinions on this without even attempting to grasp the basic concepts.
2006-07-21 08:31:21 · answer #1 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I completely agree with you. I find it interesting also that you are not a Republican. I myself am a Democrat and I am completely against embreyonic stem cell research. If scientists would just commit to trying to make advances with adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells, many of the diseases that they so often site could easily be cured without destroying human life. It is completely unethical to create life just to destroy it. Why should a human child have to die to save a person that has already enjoyed a full life. The assertion that an embreyonic cell is not human life is preposterous. Some day science will reach the point where a child will be able to survive outside the womb from even that point.
I hate to say that I support Bush on anything, but I truely am glad about him vetoing the bill. Adult stem cell research must go forward, but embreyonic stem cell research is completely unethical.
2006-07-21 08:00:53 · answer #2 · answered by zwergel88 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I will admit, I may not be totally informed about this issue, but I don't think that anyone is suggesting KILLING BABIES for embryonic stem cell research. The idea is to harbest stem cells from ABORTED embryos. These are babies that women have decided to abort for personal reasons. I really doubt that there are women out there who get pregnant and then say, "I think I'll murder my baby for stem cell research". These women decide to have an abortion (and would most likely come to this same decision whether s.c. research was an issue or not), and then the embryos could be used for research. That is if we can find a way to stop Bush from stopping it. I have a close relative who is totally blind...a cure could be found through stem cell research, but this won't happen because Bush refuses to allow cells from babies who will be aborted anyway! It's just crazy!
2006-07-21 08:02:20 · answer #3 · answered by kturner5265 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody is talking about killing babies. Nobody is talking about killing fetuses. Nobody is talking about killing embryos that would potentially grow up to become fetuses or babies.
What scientists want to do is take embryos that are not implanted, and that would never grow up to become anything because they would otherwise be discarded, and use those for medical research.
Embryonic stem cell research cannot rationally be called murder, because murder requires that taking of a human life that already exists. Embryos that are not and never will be implanted are not a human life.
So, it's nothing like ripping the heart of of a person, because not only is there no heart, there is no person. Not now, not ever. Even if the stem cells were not extracted from those particular embryos, those embryos were still going going to be discarded. So, it can't be murder, because there is not just no human life yet, there isn't even the reasonable likelihood that those non-implanted embryos would EVER become a human life.
It's like trying to call using a condom murder because it stops what otherwise might eventually become a person. And politicians use the same religious arguments when the passed laws forbidding condoms, based on the same irrational arguments that senators were making in the current debate.
If you truly want to ensure that all embryos be given every opportunity to grow into people, then you must forbid ever discarding embryos for any reason. The law would have to require that every embryo ever created be implanted. And if there aren't enough women who want to carry them, then women must be forced to carry them.
Conservatives have already stated that women should have no choice in whether they remain pregnant. So, it's not a big step from there to force women to serve as surrogates, whether they want to or not, to make sure that every embryo ever created has a full chance to become a future senator.
Once you stop making distinctions based on the facts, the argument becomes pretty easy to resolve.
2006-07-21 07:55:19 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am seeing a lot of responses, apparently from children who know how to get on the Internet but otherwise have no idea what they are babbling about. The facts are that adult stem cells are working very well. Embryonic stem cells have shown very limited results so far (but probably will improve over time).
President G. W. Bush's veto has only prevented federal funding at this time for NEW lines of embryonic stem cells. He long ago established federal funding for research on 22 existing lines of embyonic stem cells. These stem cell lines are still available, as is the funding. Researchers have taken little advantage of it.
In contrast, Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois has just made millions of dollars in state funds available for embyonic stem cell research despite the opposition of his own Democrat legislature, apparently to show his liberal opposition to the President.
2006-07-21 08:32:04 · answer #5 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am really dissapointed to see that a lot of people who have answered this question do not have a clue of what they are talking about. In order to answer a question you need to be informed. First of all, to all those people who keep on saying "adults don't have stem cells", I really hope they'll decide to take some Bio in college. Anyways, there are two types of stem cells "embryonic" and "adult". By "adult" scientists do not mean an adult's stem cell, but they mean a stem cell that is found in born humans, for instance a child or an old lady. all of us have adult stem cells, in other words, cells that have not differentiated yet. These can be found in our bone marrow, and other places in our bodies. These adult stem cells have already cured people, but you only hear it in the news every once in a while because reporters do not write facts but their own personal opinions.
Embryonic stem cells come from embryos. Now, the controversy of all this is caused by one only question: When does human life begin? Is an embryo a person? I am tired tired tired tired of telling people to study Biology. When you encounter saliva on the floor and you don't know if it's saliva from a dog or from a person what do you do? you run a test and take a sample of DNA. The DNA reveals that the saliva corresponds to a human being. This DNA is in every single cell of your body, and is unique in every single human. However we all have the same structure of DNA(which is proof that we are humans). That embryo has a unique DNA too, and guess what? IT IS A HUMAN DNA, a unique DNA that makes him a unique individual. Furthermore to all those people who say an embryo is just a bunch of cells and it's not alive, by the sole definition of cell, a "living unit" we know that the embryo is alive, and I have a tiny question to all of you. What do you think you're made of? YOU ARE MADE OF A BUNCH OF CELLS!. Now, to all those people who talk about "throwing an embryo being the same as throwing sperm" THEY DO NOT HAVE A CLUE OF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING! Sperm is part of a male body, he is a human being, when he throws aways sperm he is trowing tissue that belongs to him as an individual organism. If you take the cells of an embryo, who is a person at the earliest stage in life, you are taking something from another person. While that embryo does not tell you that you can take your cells and kill him, you DON'T DO IT. If you want to be respected you better respect other people. You started as an embryo. No, no, no YOU DID NOT "COME" from an embryo, YOU WERE an embryo once, as you were a child once, you gained size and you developed, as a child gains size and develops into an adolescent. Is a child less human because he is smaller and less developed? NO. What we have here is discrimination against another human being on the basis of size, level of development, environment and dependency. Is someone more human than someone else because they are bigger? because they are more developed? because of where they residing at a specific time? because of whether they depend on someone else or not??! I'm a college student and I still depend on my parents, should I be treated as a non-human for that?!! PLEASE, science has already defined humanity, stop making up your own definitions. Thank you.
2006-07-21 08:31:58 · answer #6 · answered by madeleyne19 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm grateful to you for the question and clarifying context. I myself being remiss in not looking into this closely. The little I did know was incomplete. I thought they were able to get it from a fetus without any harm presumably because embryonic in that form made it better.
What you're saying is a real eye opener as, being politically disaffected, it doesn't mean I'm not aware. Abortion, or any strain of it, is murder. I don't need a clergymen, scientist, politician, or anybody on Yahoo to convince me otherwise.
I really thank you. I didn't know it could be done in this way. You must also understand that there is a thing called evil in this world which, we as Americans, are not immune to. I would presume this is why the excellent alternative you point out is apparently ill received.
I've criticized Mr. Bush in days gone by but have moderated that. He's just a man. And only one man. I agree. In this, at least he did well.
As per the question of our troops. As I stated earlier, evil is in fact, rife in this world for the moment. It is absolute folly for us to be in a war posture anywhere. I think it is also because an army represents an element of resistance to the clandestine movements of evil.
Armies are composed of all different kinds of individuals. Some good, some very bad. When a nation goes to war, presumably, it is sending, and sacrificing, it's very best. Wars are visited on peoples as a spiritual punishment for the conduct of an entire nation.
A withdrawal is in fact in order, the evil in this country must be decidedly dealt with, and the statute books have to expunge quite a few laws that protect career evil.
There. I've blathered enough at you now you let me know what you thing. Alright? Fine.
2006-07-21 08:05:23 · answer #7 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How come when it's us..it's an abortion and when it's a chicken...it's an omlette????
Stem cells from adults are not even close to the same thing.
Why are you and the president a moral authority???? I don't want my tax dollars going to kill innocent people either. Cells are not people...they're cells.
They're going to throw those embryo's away anyways. Why not be moral about it and try to help people with them?
Life doesn't begin at conception...it began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process.
2006-07-21 08:07:21 · answer #8 · answered by Franklin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If I'm not mistaken, they use the embryos of babies for stem cells, because the cells haven't been established yet. They're like a piece of unmolded clay. All of the cells in adults have been developed and are serving their purpose. I don't really care for the methods or what's required for stem cell research, but it does seem to have its benefits.
2006-07-21 07:59:40 · answer #9 · answered by jthreattix 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stem cells in adults are not the same as the cells in embryos.
Sound like you need a hug
2006-07-21 07:59:35 · answer #10 · answered by RALPHY D 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋