Stem cell reserach and your view?

Question

ok, i will probably be getting alot of hate messages for this post but.. I would like actual honest opinion about the research.
I'd also like to know if your for or against it could you honestly say you know much about the research & what it actaully intails or is your only knowledge from what you've seen and heard.

my opinion: I am very much for it. And i honestly think that the government doesn't have a real case to ban the research. there are two main reasons why.

the 1st is the abortion issue. Yes, stem cells can be taken from aborted pregnancies, BUT it's not the only why to get stem cells. So i don't find it a valid excuse.

the 2nd is the cloning issues. What most people don't realize is that scientificly we are so far from ever being about to clone a human, it's still a joke. And I don't think it's the acutal issue of cloning that's the problem. It's the fact that people can't trust others to only do what this research it intended for. To change the research from good to bad

Answer 1

First off, I am definitely in favor of stem cell research... and yes, even fetal stem cell research.

It would be a problem if scientists were somehow soliciting women to terminate their pregnancies in order to obtain stem cells. The facts remain, however, that:

a) ABORTION IS LEGAL: Regardless of how people feel about this issue, stem cells from a fetus that has been aborted can save lives. Even if a person feels that abortion is wrong, how can they attempt to block scientists (who are in no way affiliated with clinics that carry out abortions) from using aborted fetal tissue to SAVE LIVES?

In short, the cells are a by-product of a LEGAL procedure, but the life-saving use of those cells is supposed to be illegal?? I fail to see the logic in that.

b)I HAVE NEVER MET A PERSON IN THE MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WHO IS FOR BANNING FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH: It seems that all of the backlash comes from outside of the medical and scientific community; from people who do not have the least bit of understanding on how stem cells work or the fact that fetal stem cells are much more effective for research and medical breakthroughs than stem cells obtained from other sources.

Answer 2

I am all for it. It's the most advanced way to do research and the quickest way to find cures for many horrible diseases, such as Huntingtons which is genetically inheirited and at this point, a terminal illness. Many people who are anti this sort of research have no idea what it's like to watch someone you love die by inches over 15 years, where they get to a point where they can't walk talk or even swallow before they die often at around 50 yrs old.
I feel that a problem that some people have re. using stem stell from aborted embryoes is that they are concerned that people will start paying women to have abortions to get stem cells. This would be wrong so policies need to be put in place so that this didn't happen and also to make sure that the mother gave consent for the stem cells to be used. Of course, as was pointed out there are other ways to get stem cells anyway and they have been doing stem cell research on a special type of pig from the Auckland Islands, which is very similar to human stem cells.
People get cloning mixed up. Being able to make sure that the baby doesn't have these diseases before proper implantation is a far cry from "making a baby have blue eyes, blond hair and choosing the sex just because you want a designer baby.

Answer 3

On one side of the coin, stem cells that have been taken from an embryo can be used to cure diseases. When the cells are removed, they have the ability to become whatever kind of cell you want in the body. Many diseases happen when the cells start malfunctioning. Take diabetes for example. When the cells in the pancreas stop making insulin, then diabetes develops. What scientists want to do is grow these stem cells in a laboratory. Then they would be implanted into a patient replacing the destroyed cells and the new cells would become the cells needed to treat the diabetic. This is only in theory because it has never been performed on a human.
The other side of this issue becomes more of a moral or social question. Is it murder when an embryo is destroyed in order to retrieve the cells? According to my research, in order to derive the stem cells, they must be taken from an embryo. What is left no longer can produce a baby if implanted into a uterus. Scientists are working on a way to create the stem cells without harming the embryo, but that is still many years away.
What is interesting was that there is a third side to this issue. One way the scientists propose to make stem cells available is cloning. According to the Center of Bioethics & Human Dignity, the process of transferring someone's DNA (the chemical basis of our genes) into a human egg stripped of its own DNA, resulting in a cloned human embryo is being called "therapeutic cloning." (http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/) What critics worry about is the cloned embryos being developed into a fetus or a baby, which is referred to as “reproductive cloning.”
I can understand the implications of what might happen if human cloning is allowed to take place. I think there should be guidelines issued to insure that this does not take place. There are so many questions surrounding this issue. I hate to take sides on this issue because I am a Christian. I would have to say though that if by producing these cells will help save the lives of those already living, then I would have to ask those not in favor of stem cell usage to think about the ones that they love and if they should become ill, would they not want to help save their life?

Answer 4

I am for it. We can take stem cells from umbilical cords and yes aborted children. I don't understand why so many people are against it. I am sure when they develop cancer and need this research they would see things differently. I could never see us ethically cloning a human being. What is wrong with growing a new heart for an infant and correcting the defect before transplantation to allow a child to live.

Answer 5

I'm sorry to say that i'm against it as far as the stem cells taken from babies aborted, since this gives women an excuse to MURDER an innocent life. I'm one of those people who call it MURDER since the baby is killed in the process. In my opinion, this is as bad as some of the experiments by (stalin? not sure on the name) and the incidents with apartheid. There is an issue here of people's rights being called into question without them having a say in it. I'm pretty sure nearly every single fetus if allowed to live would want to live instead of being a millionth of a solution to a disability. The fact is we don't and can't know the impact of these human beings without letting them live. You might see this as a post against abortion, and you'd be right. If women can justify it as contributing to science, then it will be much more often in happening than as of current. Society as a whole will also much more lenient on it, and giving this foothold will eventually completely undermine any pro-life movements.

I know this isn't the answer you want to hear, and probably won't be your "best answer", but it's what I really believe.

Answer 6

I am for it, as long as there are safeguards against "fetal farming". I used to work with cancer patients. I saw a young mother die and leave behind her husband and her baby girl. I became friends with another young man who ended up relapsing and dieing. I also witnessed husbands and wives have to watch the love of their life slip away, and parents who had to burry their kids. In almost every instance, stem cell research would have helped. I understand that people don't want unethical profiteers to set up "fetal farms". But still, how can you look a parent in the eye and tell them that trying everything possible to save their child is not worth a possible ethical "issue". Or how can you look an adult child in the eye and tell them that the possiblity of getting their Alzheimers riddled parent back for a couple more years isn't worth possibly violating some nebulous moral standard.

Stem cell research can be done ethically and it should be done. I know it sounds harsh and hateful, but I hope all these "holier than thou" politicians who vote against it on "moral" grounds all end up loosing someone they love to a disease that might have been cured by the stem cell research they voted against. I guarantee you that if Barbara Bush came down with Alzheimers or leukemia tomorrow, George W. could get enough federal funds to the researchers fast enough.

Answer 7

Absolutely for it!!!
People have always fought against anything new.
When the first steam locomotives were ready to run, doctors warned that a speed of 20km/hr (about 12mph) would be deadly for passengers.
People fought against keeping things clean in hospitals, and those advocating it (Pasteur, Semmelweiss) were ridiculed.
The general population has never been very smart, and that, unfortunately, has not changed at all.

Answer 8

I am 100% for Stem Cell Research.The Government should be shame for even having an issue about it, when it could help so many people that desperately need it. I write my Senator about this and other people that believe it should be funded should write their Senators and other Representatives.

Answer 9

I, too, am for it. The big dispute is about embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are the basic building blocks of life, cells that will develop into any cell in the body, and are the key to learning more about life itself. Stem cell research could lead to cures for Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, numerous cancers, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and ALS, which took my father 4 years ago. Nancy Reagan, whose husband's last years were spent in the fog of Alzheimer's, is a strong proponent of stem cell research.

The bill that Bush vetoed earlier this year would have allowed medical researchers to use stem cells from embryos, with their donors' consent, that would have been discarded by fertility clinics. About 400,000 frozen embryos are in clinics; a few will be "adopted" by mothers who have them implanted in their uteruses; most embryos will be thrown away.

There is no law banning embryonic stem cell research. The limitation that Congress was trying to overcome with HR810 was the ban on using federal money to fund it. Currently, no federally funded research facility is allowed to use embryonic stem cells created after April 2001. This limits them to using the 60 or so lines developed before then, the vast majority of which are contaminated with animal byproducts.

That said, I am opposed to human cloning. Congress passed a law earlier this year to prohibit "fetus farming", the creation of a fetus specifically for research purposes. There are enough "blastocysts" (an embryo that is between 50 to 150 cells) being discarded every year (5-10 in the time it took me to write this) to make this unnecessary.

There are 4 types of stem cells -
totipotent- created from the fusion of an egg and sperm
pluripotent-embryonic stem cells
multipotent-can produce similar cells
unipotent-can produce one type of cell

A lot of research has been done on unipotent stem cells and multipotent stem cells. Multipotent cells attained from cord blood, for example, have already been used to treat Gunther's disease, Hunter syndrome, Hurler syndrome, Acute lymphocytic leukemia and other blood disorders. The problem with adult stem cells is that they may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in DNA replication the course of a lifetime.

Pluripotent stem cells can differentiate into cells derived from the three germ layers - endoderm (liver, pancreas, trachea, bronchi, and air cells of the lungs, etc.), ectoderm (skin), and mesoderm (everything in between, for lack of a better term). They hold the most promise.

Answer 10

It has nothing to do with religion, its a possible cure, it should be allowed. Once the big drug companies figure out the best way yo profit from it they will let it happen until then they will continue to lobby against it using religious organizations take the blame.