Does it make an immoral person to believe in this? I see myself as a man of science, i personally believe that this is the universal cure to all diseases in the future. Some people say though that human beings are destroyed in the process of the research, the way i see it is that eventhough it is a growing cell it has no thoughts, no feelings, no individuality since it cannot yet relate to us in the sense of a developed human being. I personally stand all the way for this research, yet others think otherwise... What's more important, the chances that a cell MIGHT develop into a human being, or the chance of developing something that might help the whole world.
2006-08-07 19:37:23 · 9 answers · asked by Lexus-Nut 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You will note that the people complaining about stem cell research have no knowledge of science and clearly do not understand what a stem cell is in the first place. They operate from misguided religious conceptions only and common sense does not enter into the picture.
Stem cell research is very important and should be allowed, but unfortunately, we have the blockade of blockheads standing in the way and they are not likely to go away anytime soon.
2006-08-07 19:47:23 · answer #1 · answered by Seikilos 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
An embryo is a group of 100 undifferentiated cells and it can in no way be compared to a human or even a fetus by anyone with even the slightest bit of scientific knowledge.
In a press conference, Tony Snow's response was that the President thinks murder is wrong. This just goes to show the depth of ignorance of George Bush. His veto is absurd and a spit in the face to the 3/4 of Americans who wanted the research and most of all to everyone suffering from a disease that could be cured from the research.
There is nothing christian about that.
2006-08-08 02:48:01 · answer #2 · answered by D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets say a drifter was walking down the street and he collapsed. He was quickly rushed to the hospital. He had no ID on him, and nobody reported him missing, he was a john doe. He was in a vegetative state, and had a rare disease that could only be cured by having him plugged into a machine for nine months, and even then there was only a 80% chance he would make it.
When he wOKe up he'd have no memory at all and would have to be taught how to speak, walk and everything all over just like a child.
Then lets say someone in the next room was dying of heart failure, and the drifters blood type matched perfectly. Would it be OK for the doctors to unplug the machine, let the drifter die to remove his heart for the person in the next room?
The drifter is identical to that of a fetus in every way. No thoughts, no feelings, and cannot yet relate to us in anyway, and if he is allowed to grow normally he'll have the same odds of surviving and become a person. The doctors aren't killing him they simply aren't helping him. Is it ok to the unplug the drifter? I don't think it is. And realistically Stem Cell research is similar in almost every relevant way.
2006-08-08 02:55:29 · answer #3 · answered by Batman 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stem cells from aborted embryos? What is this 'potential human being' argument? I dont' understand. If you stuck it back in a woman would it develop into a baby? Once aborted, it's dead and there ain't no going back.
Are the scientists aborting the embryos in the first place in order to extract those stem cells? I don't think so.
It wasn't that long ago that people were offended when scientists were doing experiements on cadavers (they didn't kill any of those people either)
Ask yourself where we would be now if they hadn't.
2006-08-08 06:08:16 · answer #4 · answered by Steffi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think many "pro-lifers" protest more for religious reasons. Specifically, they think a soul is assigned at conception. Odd thing is, their own sacred text says otherwise:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Adam didn't have a soul until he breathed his first breath.
2006-08-08 02:46:22 · answer #5 · answered by l00kiehereu 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's far more important to save someone who already exists and is suffering than to protect a potential life.
2006-08-08 02:41:33 · answer #6 · answered by Not Allie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm with you.
I hope in time people will understand how much good stem cells can do.
2006-08-08 02:49:53 · answer #7 · answered by tribesgallery 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see the need to argue with reactionary automatons.
You're right.
2006-08-08 02:57:49 · answer #8 · answered by -.- 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
on my part, i agree with u strongly. but we have to also be sensitive to the worlds response abt this.
2006-08-08 02:49:52 · answer #9 · answered by nadiee mulisha 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋