For or Against Stem Cell Usage?

Question

I am all for it. If it can help better someone's life than lets do it. What are we waiting for?

Answer 1

I'm with you, I'm all for it.
We currently destroy stem cells daily at a huge rate (in the form of frozen embryos) rather than put them to good use finding cures for disease. Why do opponents of stem cell usage think that's a better thing to do than use them to help people?

Answer 2

4

Answer 3

There are three basic sources of stem cells.

1. Adult Stem Cells.
2. Umbilical Cord Stem Cells
3. Embryonic (Fetal) Stem Cells

Many people think that using FETAL stem cells is taking a human life. Therefore, it is immoral to experiment with them. It's as simple as that.

As for those who don't think that a fetus is a human being, your DNA today is exactly the same as the day that you were conceived. If you're human today, then you were human then as well.

Here are some sources about experimenting on "lesser" humans. Read them and then tell me that FETAL stem cell research is moral.

BTW: There has NEVER been a successful use of fetal stem cells in treating any medical problems. They are too unstable and cause more problems than they are worth.

Answer 4

There are lots of stem cell sources and piles of stem cell research going on. But the often unspoken insistence and focus on EMBRYONIC stem cells is the issue.

Tests currently show that stem cells can cause cancer and all kinds of haywire stuff in a body--think of the organ rejections that used to happen until people started to figure out how to 'zig instead of zag' when putting "foreign objects" into people's bodies, especially bodies that had problems to begin with.

No one is complaining about using bone marrow stem cells, subdermis stem cells, or unbilical cord stem cells, etc. The problem is the idea that we will have women aborting babies for profit so some old fart won't have alzheimer's so bad, or some smoker (who often still smokes) can regrow some lung tissue when he is in advanced stages of lung cancer. Then there are the cosmetics. No one is complaining about growing skin for burn victims, but aborting babies as feed stock for regenerative treatments of some beach bunny that damaged her skin from being in the sun too long--that is what is wrong.

Stem cells weren't going to stop Michael J. Fox from shaking or get Christopher Reeves out of his wheel chair if he had lived so long, we aren't anywhere near there yet.

Answer 5

Let's begin by saying that an "embryo" is a life and should not be destroyed, Amendment 2 DOES clearly say that cloning will be allowed. Do you know what that means?? It means that they can make several embryos in petrie dishes and when they mutate and don't turn out the way the scientist want them to they are destroyed. It also states that women who donate their eggs could potentially be compensated for this service. But they don't tell you how hard is it on a woman's body to do that and that she could potentially die or never be able to have her own children. Hello, they have never even proven that stem cells can CURE anything, they are say we need to research and find out IF they can cure anything. Come on people do we really want this kind of Frankenstein science going on??? How about good old fashioned brain power to cure things, not destruction of human life first.

Answer 6

For it. There are still a lot of people out there that don't understand science and feel like we can't 'play God'. But really, those same type of people thought you could fall off the Earth, because they thought the world was flat!

Answer 7

I am all for it, too. This is the miracle that we've been waiting for for SO many diseases and injuries.

Answer 8

for it