Scientists are upset with Bush's decision on Stem Cell research....?

Question

Bush is against it. They argue that with the research info gathered, they can possibly cure cancer, learn more about the human body and cure paralysis.

Bush is against it because in order to get the cell it has to be pulled from a human embryo(the baby before it's human) destroying it. Bush says that this is killing human life.

We all know that science can both way, for or against morals and right and wrong. What is your take on this?

Answer 1

i don't know enough about the topic to give a stupid answer let alone judge bush's veto.

However, my first impression is that we should be able to have stem cell research. You can't kill something that is not yet alive.

There was a time when studying a dead body was against the law in most areas of the world.

Eventually, people will know enough to decide if it is right or wrong.

Answer 2

Personally, I am against it. I don't think it's ok to end a life, even if it will POSSIBLY cure a disease. I have heard some researchers say they feel all the focus on this being allowed will take focus away from other avenues of promising research, which are close to possibly finding cures for the same diseases. So all the research they've been advancing on in the past will just be null & void b/c of this & who knows they could've been very close to the answer. I am sure the researchers are split on this issue, just like all of us "regular" people. good topic choice by the way . . . I would have to think long & hard about if I would accept treatments brought about by this method. I don't think I would accept those treatments. B/c I stick to my moral convictions.
p.s. Embryos are BABIES. I am so sick of people saying, but it can't survive out of the womb without help/support. Netiher can a newborn baby, is it ok to harvest their parts? Heck, my 12 year old nephew can't function on his own. Then next, how about mentally disabled people, let's use their parts too. This is just another step toward people valuing life less and less. So sad.

Answer 3

I am totally for it, for several different reasons.
1.) The embryos to be used are already set to be destroyed, they are aborted fetuses. There is no killing of living beings.
2.) Stem cells are ONLY found in embryos, and stem cells can be grown into ANY cell that is bonded with it.
3.) With cloning now being possible, you could clone stem cells, and have a vast bank of cells to work with.
4.) The many diseases that could possibly be cured kill more people a year than the amount of fetuses being used.
5.) Due to a constant world overpopulation problem, and the fact that maybe a hundred to a thousand dead babies are being used to help people live longer, or more people live period, is a good thing.
6.) Abortion is legal, why not put it to good use somehow?

Answer 4

Here it goes. I'm a Conservative Republican, but that doesn't mean I agree with all Republicans on their ethics. Saying that, here are my thoughts.

The thought of taking a human embryo from a baby that will be aborted is immoral. Sure, it could happen, but it's like your taking over the role of God.

Science says this will "POSSIBLY" (note that word) cure cancer, other diseases, etc. The word "possibly" indicates they aren't sure.

We've been looking for cures to diseases for a long time and have finally found a possible cure. However, once we find the cure to all these diseases, don't you think this will lead to something more?

What happens when we cure all these diseases? Don't you think "perfection" in human's eyes will be the next thing to accomplish. Now, we don't treasure what God has given us, we want to manipulate ourselves and others into what we, as humans find preferable.

What happens when humans say red hair isn't desirable. Don't you think this stem cell research could go to an extreme and say Okay, "let's take stem cells to make everyone have a desirable hair color, to have the best reflexes because we need good people to fight for our freedom in America, to have perfect eyesight.

We, as humans, are changing the way we look to others. We are no longer in "God's image" if you catch my drift. We no longer desire what God has given us. We desire to manipulate our appearance and certain aspects of ourselves.

Do you see now how this can be taken to an extreme? Science has good intentions, but after all, the best of intentions can turn for the worse.

This stem cell research was already tested in Germany to an extent during World War II I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. They were sacrificing human lives in order to study this stuff.

When have you crossed the line. There's a point where things aren't ethical anymore.

No offense if you're a democrat, but Ann Coulter wrote the book, Godless - The Church of Liberalism. Democrats criticize President Bush and when a Democrat gets in office, as told by the Liberal Media, it's like "Oh no," you can't criticize him/her. Liberals are trying to take religion out of every single thing and Democrats have a lower attendance rate at church as a whole compared to Republicans.

If you read the Ten Commandments, you'll see how this isn't ethical. It may be ethical in scientists eyes for what they see to be a genuine purpose, but it could turn deadly.

What happens when they want to take these stem cells from living people?

If this follows through, you will be judged by your appearance because you can change it and you will be judged less on your personality which is more important. People should value what they have, not what they want to have.

You can e-mail me about this; just click on my avatar and you'll see my contact info.

God bless you.

Answer 5

Bush should allow Stem Cell research. Babies will always be aborted. Rather than throwing away the waste, why not use it for something good at least.

This is the same concept. It's like throwing away good food in the trash when there are so many starving people in the world who could have eaten it.

Answer 6

Bush didn't read the legislation before vetoing it. The way it was worded, only embryos that are going to be thrown into the trash would be given the option for research. If someone want to adopt an embryo, that would be given first choice.

My take on this situation is that Bush didn't read the legislation he vetoed as it has none of the problems he claims.

Answer 7

Our species only have a limited time on this planet. So we have no time to lose on moral debates and diatribes. We should focus on the utilitarian and logic view. It is mankind's duty to acquire as much knowledge and power as he can.

Embryos are not conscious living beings and therefore there is no harm being done by farming and harvesting embryos for the sake of stem cell research.

It is hower, completely IMMORAL to impede any enterprise that would give mankind more knowledge and power.

So laws banning stem cell research are working against the human potential and are therefore immoral.

Answer 8

Even if Bush himself is against stem cell research, that doesn't mean that he should be allowed to legislate morality and prevent possibly life-saving scientific advances based on his personal beliefs.

Answer 9

Considering George can care less that over 2000 troops have died in his little war game, it's ironic that he gives a hoot about an embryo being destroyed that could save thousands of lives.

Answer 10

who isnt upset with everything bush has done since he first stole the presidency hes a moron and has no clue about anything i mean come on the man ran two oil companies into the ground and the texas rangers did you expect anything less from him when he took office if you thought he was gonna do good in office then your as bad as the people that put him there since he took office those three little words we the people dont mean a damn thing