Alot of america openly supports stem cell research, many do not. Without supporting or opposing either side. Since the researched has been forced to a crawl by law of federal funding. In the event that scientists do develop cures to diseases that are killing many. Should those who helped stop its progress be allowed to partake of things garnered from it? For example..if President Bush contracted a disease they found a cure for through stem cell research should he be given the cure or allowed to wait for his faith to heal him? I am not anti-bush or a liberal bush basher. Or an anti-christian. I'm simply asking..those who block scientific progress on the basis of their faith be allowed to benefit from the same scientific research they tried to stop? Opinions?
2006-08-24
12:08:01
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Militarywiccan110
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Please dont misunderstand my statement. Personally as a medical professional i think no matter what someone does if we can cure them we should. I'm not suggesting we withhold treatment. I've simpy heard alot of talk on this subject and wanted to hear all sides.
2006-08-24
12:32:57 ·
update #1
It is a very interesting point you make with your question. It is the same point that I see happening with some of the "pro life" people that get their girlfriend/become pregnant, and they aren't ready or don't want their parents to know, so they go off and get an abortion. It's a horrible thing until it will benefit you, and you are in the position that no one will find out about you betraying your "beliefs" to do it.
I think it is human nature to do such things. In my heart, I want to say no - they should not be allowed to benefit from research they fought and opposed. But my mind and compassion say that they should be saved, like everyone else. The world would be a more boring place if everyone had the same point of view. If they all died, we would all be of the same view on stem cell research.
2006-08-24 12:54:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The same principal would apply for someone who is morally opposed to war and refuse military service during wartime, but who might still benefit from the end results.
There are certain religious groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, who do not vote, but who perhaps benefit from the election of individuals who protect their rights.
Personally, I am for stem cell research - embryonic or not. Especially when you consider that the embryos used would be destroyed anyway.
Moral values are a tricky subject and don't always follow reason. I'm afraid we just have to accept that some people will be dogmatic in their views. However, if we witheld the benefits of this research, we would be more like them than I would want to be.
2006-08-24 12:23:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by jack b 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes they should. because that may be the only way they will learn to value progress and science.
nancy reagan needed to see her husband die before she realized the possibilities. i don't think she needs any harsher lesson. the bible gets this one right when it says don't hide your light under a bushel. vinegar and honey...
i see the point you are trying to make, but as a medical professional doesn't it bother you to see this vindictiveness come into play? are we really so alienated from each other that this is what the argument becomes?
this is the opportunity to take a giant step. part of the problem is, some arguments should get no quarter. i'm sorry, but i can't see jesus so it doesn't matter to me what his opinions on the matter are. the person who mentions that aborted babies will be made into a market that someone will benefit from and that's what the government aims to prevent... these aborted babies are going into the garbage otherwise. there is no market you could possibly be observing to make that argument. it makes no sense whatsoever. there are no baby farms; there is no risk tax dollars will be used to generate embryos for stem cells.
we need to stop tagging in fantasies. they just make everything muddier.
2006-08-24 12:17:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by uncle osbert 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Stem cell research is just another smoke screen for money. If you think stem cell research will find a cure for cancer or any other incredible disease, you watch too much tv. I think they can cure cancer now if they really wanted to, but there's much more cash to be had in the 'research' of it than the dispensing of antidotes.
2006-08-24 12:21:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm so bitter about bush stopping medical progress, that I must
say, let his faith heal him.
No one is getting rich off abortions. That's the most ridiculous
statement, ever.
The pharmaceutical companies are getting rich from overblown
pricing of medications, diabetic supplies, smoking related
disease & other medical conditions, that need to be cured.
2006-08-24 12:33:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your toenail clippings have DNA too it somewhat is a ability individual using fact whilst put in the suitable environment (interior a cellular ucleus) might have the comparable ability to alter into an entire human basically like an embryo. So does the exterior you shed and each cellular on your physique, different than for reproductive cells like sperm or ova, which in elementary terms incorporate a million/2 the essential DNA. in elementary terms some nutrition for thought.
2016-09-29 23:00:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You missed the whole point. Tax money can not be used to create babies and then kill them for stem cells.
BUT, private money can be used. And it should be private money. Because just like abortion, it is a money maker. People are getting rich with abortion, and they will with stem cell research too.
Show them the money. If you want more stem cell research, SEND MONEY.
That's great. And it may end up actually helping people. But don't get rich off the taxpayer.
2006-08-24 12:32:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋