2006-07-24 15:32:03 · 8 answers · asked by <3 The Pest <3 6 in Health ➔ Other - Health
I'm a biologist who deals with medical issues. I also have a permanent disability, and I can tell you, I'm against it. There is too much potential for ethical abuse of the technology.
2006-07-24 15:38:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is imperative that we continue to research in this area to find cures for diseases and who knows what else can be accomplished.
The only people who are against this, I believe, are afraid of something, I'm not sure, but these cells can be obtained after a mother gives birth in the umbilical cord - doesn't need to come from abortion byproducts.
2006-07-24 15:38:00 · answer #2 · answered by D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definately for it - my son has diabetes and at age 6 has gotten over 8000 shots in his lifetimes. Stem cell research could cure diabetes for him, and other diseases for so many people
2006-07-24 15:54:53 · answer #3 · answered by jujiot 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would be less walk for the cure of ________(insert disease)
Apparently Bush thinks that walking is a better way to find a cure than stem cells
fvcking idiot
2006-07-24 15:44:57 · answer #4 · answered by Shortstuff71 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For, if there is abortion why not stem cell research, better they go for science than just go for nothing
2006-07-24 15:36:16 · answer #5 · answered by jon j 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For it, lets rip those babies outta they mama's bellies and get ta work!!!
But, seriously, all those things that can be cured out of infants that will just be DESTROYED anyways. Why let their little lives go for NOTHING?
Hell, why have "donor cards" then when we die?
2006-07-24 15:38:28 · answer #6 · answered by AdamKadmon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for it, better of man kind in the future.. we still don't have a cure for Aids, some cancers etc...
2006-07-24 15:36:23 · answer #7 · answered by Arun M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for it...because the good it can do so far outweighs the bad.
2006-07-24 15:35:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋