Stem cell research?

Question

What are your general thoughts about it? Should stem cell research be funded by the government - is there even enough known about it right now to call for government funding? Is it ethical?

Just interested in hearing your thoughts. :)

Answer 1

If religious crazies would leave all alone we might have a good country

Answer 2

Research with embryonic stem cells derived from humans is controversial because, in order to start a stem cell 'line' or lineage, the destruction of a human embryo is usually required. In an attempt to overcome these moral, political and ethical hurdles, medical researchers have been experimenting with alternative techniques of obtaining embryonic stem cells by extraction, which does not involve the cloning or destruction of a human embryo.
Stem cells taken from the umbilical cord are a second very rich source of stem cells. Umbilical cells can also offer a perfect match where a family has planned ahead. Cord cells are extracted during pregnancy and stored in cryogenic cell banks as a type of insurance policy for future use on behalf of the newborn. Cord cells can also be used by the mother, the father or others. The more distant the relationship, the more likely it is that the cells will be rejected by the immune system's antibodies. However, there are a number of common cell types just as there are common blood types so matching is always possible especially where there are numerous donors. The donation and storage process is similar to blood banking. Donation of umbilical cells is highly encouraged. Compared to adult cells and embryonic cells, the umbilical cord is by far the richest source of stem cells, and cells can be stored up in advance so they are available when needed. Further, even where there is not an exact DNA match between donor and recipient, scientists have developed methods to increase transferability and reduce risk.

As you see we don't have to kill to do this type of research,I think it just something that has become excepted,that like with abortion,the human being is exspendable,without a second thought.

Answer 3

For me its not only an argument of ethics, its a principal of governmental duty.

I pay money for health care, and social security... do i see any of those things? NO. should that money i pay go to fund research that shows so little promise of financial return that the companies own financial providers refuse to invest in it? NO.

There has been so much more promise, so much more done, so many things accomplished with non-embryonic stem cell research (which has been around just about as long as embryonic) that the very idea of pushing a moral and theological battle with the facade of "medical research" is absurd.

This isnt the medical community pleading to solve our biggest medical mysteries for the sake of the public, this is drug companies and liberal lawyers pushing to create another moral debate.

its that simple. You know there is something fishy when medical investers, people who make their wealth primarily by investing in new medical research and technology, refuse to invest in this line of work.

This is nothing more than pushing the evelope on what this country will consider morally acceptable, and what the legal community can do to change it, and how the medical community can profit from those changes.

Answer 4

Yes I do think the government should fund stem cell research. In doing so maybe there could be cures made for Parkinson's Disease, and others. I think it is ethical because it isn't like they are going to be killing fetuses, they would only be using those that are going to be thrown out anyway. It is alot more ethical to do this than to have our military people killed by the thousands for Mr. Bushs war!!!!!!!

Answer 5

Support it or don't supprot it (I don't, just to be clear), this is a perfect example of why gov't shouldn't (and actually has no constitutional prerogative to) direct funds for medical research.

Many people are morally opposed to stem cell research and the fed gov't has no right to force them to play moral suicide with their own tax money.

Private funding and research is an option. It is not contingent on the fed gov't to advance medical science..

Answer 6

If the government is going to fund medial research, this is as good a venue as any. But the government gets to pick and choose where it puts its money.

Answer 7

i think if the cells r going to be destroyed anyway then why not! its the same to me as being an organ donor after u die. maybe they will use the organs to save someone life or maybe they will be used for teachng, testing and stuff. So i have to say yes, i think it should be funded by the government.

Answer 8

Yes the government should definitley fund it if this research might eventually lead to cures for diseases. Sarge said it best, if you are pro life or pro choice, you have to know these things are goint to be destroyed anyway. So, they should be used for research.

Answer 9

I support it. Stem cells do not have to come from fetuses. They can come from adults and umbilical cord blood. The government should look into ways to get it from sources other that fetuses.

Answer 10

That be awesome if you could get em to stem cell grow me a third arm if you know what I mean.

Answer 11

I really don't see a problem with the gov't funding it. I'm against abortion, but since the embryos are going to be thrown away anyhow, there might as well be some good to come from it all.
Plus it's not like the gov't has ever been frugal.