Which side of morality does stem cell research lean toward?

Question

As Christians (or other religions) we have a basic responsibility to insure that every person has a consistent and quality ethic of life from conception until natural death. Some argue that stem cell research kills unborn children, and naturally murder is the worst encroachment on life. Others argue that those cells are made in a petri dish and would not have naturally become children, and there is a moral obligation to insure the best quality of life for the elderly by trying to cure or treat debilitating diseases. What do you think?

Answer 1

I think it would be good to do more research.

Answer 2

When I saw Pres. Bush babbling on about how he vetoed that bill he was standing in a room of people holding a "snowflake baby" I had never heard of that before. Apparently that is a baby that started out in one of those petri dishes.

My feeling was and is, what about the people who suffered or are suffering a horrible and demeaning death of alzhiemers disease? Yes, it is awful to take a human life. Of course. But...the question remains if it is a bunch of cells in a petri dish and is not yet implanted in a woman's uterus and on it's way to becoming a human being....is it not just as horrible to "take" the life of the person who is suffering from a horrible disease that may be cured by using those cells? Those cells do not feel any pain or misery. They feel no loss, and no one will feel any loss at their being used for research.

It is really an argument that can go in circles forever. I mean, the research may prevent many people from dying, but...people die so new ones can live. And...the babies that are created in a petri dish, well, they are "man made" and perhaps the reason for some people not being able to concieve is also another natural way of controlling population. It is just so complicated.

I am all for the research though. I think that if someone can be spared the humiliation of growing increasingly helpless, of having to wear diapers and have someone feed you when you are an adult than that is a beautiful thing. It is not like someone is going out and clubbing babies over the head until they die and then slicing them up into bits that will be examined and discarded!

Answer 3

Stem cell reasearch offers the hope of some major break-thrus in medical treatments and cures. As long as we are not destroying life why should it be a moral issue. Is it any different that using human transplant tissue or blood for infusion.

What this is all about concerning human embriotic tissue is a religious right attemp to interfere in the abortion issue. The current law holds that there is no human life before the second trimester of pregnancy. The human embrio is an attempt to hold that there is life before the sperm and egg unit to change abortion laws by a back door. We are going thru a modern version of the dark ages.

Answer 4

Well truthfully, i am all for stem cell resarch, because this like many other things in history has helped advancements to be made towards the curing of diseases. But i would not agree with children just being born and killed with their stem cells removed just for research. i would restrict the terms of acquiring the substance to an extent; perhaps just extricating a stem cell just if the fetus would die anyway (naturally, abortion, or perhaps disease, even after birth.)But if we want any progress i think that we should definitely have stem cell research conducted; this may be a way for us to finally finda cure to cancer; i woudl not give this chance up if i could help it. Anyway, if someone were to argue even then that its still wrong to extract a stem cell even if the baby would die; i would not agree if the parents themselves were to give consent; in fact this would be of utter importance to me; the PARENTS MUST CONSENT (OR GUARDIAN ANYWAY). Also i have trouble consideringa still-developing fetus a living intelligent human. I AM NOT SAYING I SUPPORT KILLING FETI FOR STEM CELLS; but if some tenacious critic were to say that extracting stem cells is wrong even if its only a fetus and not yet born, i would have to argue, because if you are only taking stem cells from embryos its not the same as taking it froma born baby. So i do think that it is necessary to use stem cells and i think it is morally acceptable as long as some restrictions are set just as they are on other things.

Answer 5

This comes down to a question of: HOW HUMAN MUST YOU BE TO BE GRANTED RIGHTS AS AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN?

Does a fetus have rights when it cannot survive unless it is attached within the womb? (And does this then enslave the woman to serve the needs of the fetus to the exclusion of her rights NOT to live as a slave?)

Does the embryo have rights before it ever implants onto the wall of the womb? (Realize that, without implantation, the woman is not pregnant. The egg is fertilized, but the woman herself is not pregnant until she is providing sustenance for a developing embryo.)

Does the fertilized egg have rights before it is anywhere near a womb, but instead is living in some laboratory container awaiting the decision whether to attempt to implant it in the mother or a surrogate? (These are the eggs at issue with embryonic stem cell research.)

Do an unfertilized egg and sperm ejaculated have rights as potential human beings?

Should sexually mature adults be required to subject themselves to government scrutiny so as to ensure that they do nothing that could harm their eggs and sperm that may eventually result in the birth of a new human life?

These are merely the gradations of reproductive oversight, any of which are a possibility.

Personally, I don't believe any creature gets to call itself human so long as it has to live attached to the interior of another human being. Human beings do not live as parasites, whereas, broadly speaking, fetuses must. In the USA, we celebrate birthdays, because that is when we we entered the world. On that day we became human beings and suddenly were granted rights.

The fertilized embryos kept in in-vitro fertilization clinics are no more human than any other human tissue that cannot survive without an umbilical host: fingernail clippings, an extracted gall bladder, blood from an accidental pin puncture. Each of these are human tissue, but they wouldn't meet the definition of human being until they have the capacity to breathe, eat, sleep, and pitch a fit.

Until that day happens, may the scientists do their best to help find a cure for all the maladies that stem cells can help resolve. If they want, I'll even donate my gall bladder.

Answer 6

As a Christian i think in stem telephone learn and besides the actuality that they now approve using stem cells out of your spinal twine and umbilical twine, I stll assume that using an undesirable or certainly expelled fetus is an efficient concept to help persons already alive. I evaluate maximum Christians do no longer in basic terms like the advice no longer suitable thinking the undeniable fact that they have self assurance that the fetus will 'evaluate' it yet additionally through fact each and each residing ingredient (besides the actuality that technically residing yet) has the suitable suited to prosper. I evaluate additionally they might have self assurance that individuals who have already got ailments and issues which could be cured via stem cells have the ailment thinking the actuality that its the cycle of life. that's all solid and nicely, yet i do no longer completely carry close how a miscarried infant or aborted teenager can't be used. Its now in contrast to human beings are going to be aborting babies in order that that they could be waiting for use for stem cellular examine... different than of direction they paying persons for the fetus... Then issues will actual get screwy.

Answer 7

Based on my understanding, stem cells are cells that are not "assigned" to be a part of anything 'yet'. The cells come from fetuses and are also found in the umbilical cord of newborns. I am NOT for abortion by any means! I believe in stem cell research, but I feel the cells should be obtained from the umbilical cords of newborns (with parents' consent of course) or from a fetus that was miscarried, NOT murdered!

Answer 8

There definitely needs to be a balance.

I'm kind of on the fence about it, until I fully educate myself on all the facts. However, I definitely think our tax dollars should NOT be used for funding it. I'm glad Bush vetoed the Federal funding of it.

By the way. Many believe that Bush vetoed the bill and it made Stem Cell research illegal. If you're one of those people, you have been greatly misinformed. The veto of it simply means that your tax dollars can't be used for funding it.

Nothing is keeping you from funding it. If you truly are for stem cell research, send your hard earned money to the stem cell research organizations.

If you're totally for it, you can donate the money yourself. Don't force people that are totally against it to pay for it.

Answer 9

Stem cell research is the future- I don't think pro-lifers attitude towards it is going to make a difference. I don't mean that nastily- it's just that the research will go on in other countries if not in the US.

Personally I am pro-stem cell research, but it's a hard one to justify. I just don't care about foetuses as much as I care about people who are suffering.

Answer 10

I am a Christian. I believe human life begins at conception. To destroy an embryo to gather stem cells to heal others, is little different than killing a 4 yr old and harvesting his kidneys for others...both are murder and barbaric, and show little regard for life. Stem cells harvested with other means that does not involve murder are quite OK with me.

Answer 11

They can do lots of stem cell research on cells without killing babies or harvesting embryos. I am for the research but against the harming of the little ones the old or the handicapped to get them. There are plenty of stem cells around without killing someone!