2006-11-13 14:47:31 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Stem cells are cell in the humane body that have not yet been defined. meaning they have not developed to the point of of becoming an organized mass called tissue such as muscle tissue or skin tissue or nerve tissue. This is important because researchers are investigating ways to coax stem cells into developing into specific types of tissue within the body to aid in the cure of injuries and disease. For example if someones spinal cord was cut and you could get stem cells to develop into spinal cord tissue to repair the damage . this has actually been demonstrated in mice. now this is somewhat of an oversimplification but you get the idea.
Now as stated by previous answers there are 2 types of stem cells Adult and Embryonic. The controversy is over the use of Embryonic stem cells. there are several ethical debates that arise from embryonic stem cells..
1.Obviously by their nature they are derived from embryos or fertilized eggs. Now those believing that life begins at inception (such as myself) think that is destruction of viable life and object on these grounds.. Others say there are thousands of embryos created for in-vitro fertilization and many go unused and likely will never be implanted so why not get some good from them. To better illustrate my position let me paint a slightly different picture. Let say one person had a unique immune system that created antibodies that would attack and destroy all types of cancer.. Obviously these cells would be useful to curing those afflicted. Now would it be ethical to pass a law requiring that individual to donate blood and tissue against his will so that thousands could be cured. Worse yet would it be ethical to require that individual to submit cells for cloning so even more could be cured. this brings us to the second Issue
2. The second way to to get embryonic stem cells is by cloning and harvesting the stem cells before the embryo develops into a fetus. The moral and ethical implications here are obvious. you might call this the production line approach and the very idea is intolerable to many people.
3. Lastly, Once use of embryonic stem cell is deemed acceptable would it be legal to sell ones eggs much like people sell plasma today.Currently there is no prohibition on the practice and it would likely be used. Realizing that the female body produces a finite supply of eggs determined at birth the use of financial incentives to induce women likely poor woman to donate raises it's own ethical questions
Currently federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on new embryo's is banned. the government has made an exception for a few strains of cells that were developed prior to the funding ban. This ban is not on research but on federal funding the private sector as well as state funding wholly with state dollars is still legal
As far as Adult stem cell research goes there are no restrictions I know of
So there you have the debate in a nutshell as for yourself you have to decide on your own ethics. I have tried to give as unbiased a coverage as I can detailing the pertinent facts.
2006-11-13 15:50:04 · answer #1 · answered by sooj 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are different kinds of stem cell research, you need to be specific.
The least effective is embryonic. There is no viable research.
Then there is adult stem cells, umbilical cord cells, and another.
The whole thing has been politicized by Democrats. They say that Republicans, especially the religious right, is against stem cell research. This is a lie. We are against the embryonic because it creates life to destroy it.
What most conservatives do not want is FEDERAL MONEY to be used. Make it a private sector issue.
It is such an issue because it deals with emotional issues of disease.
2006-11-13 15:00:37 · answer #2 · answered by GOPneedsarealconservative 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe and support stem cell research. Many americans including President Bush do not, because they see it as immoral cloning of body organs and acting god-like.
However, I believe scientists could find (or have found) a way to help people who are physically disabled. Examples of people who could have benifited from stem cell research are actors Christopher Reeve and Micheal J. Fox.
The president has a point in his beliefs on the topic of cloning and re-creating life.
But could you look in the eyes of a ten year old girl, paralized from the neck down, and tell her she has to live that way the rest of her life?
2006-11-14 14:01:07 · answer #3 · answered by david g 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ruth is basically right but the problem then turns to Cloning. they want to take a stem cell to reginerate a part of the body or cells that are damaged. But when you start to allow that what is to say you cant take that same stem cell and make a new person. Creating a super human race. Then start picking genes and creating perfect humans. PLAYING GOD. This is the heart of the problem that you wont see the dems talk about. taking things to conclusion is the downfall of dems.
2006-11-13 14:59:22 · answer #4 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Embryonic stem cell research is where the contention exists
2006-11-13 14:49:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stem cell research has two components: adult stem cell research (non-issue), and embryonic stem cell research (big issue).
The issue has two components: Embryos are life (or not) which must be destroyed for research (or not), and federal funding (or not).
2006-11-13 14:51:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
My question is can my wife legally sell embryo's? You know like plasma! Maybe we can get the poor people to do it for extra cash!
2006-11-13 14:53:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We all know what clones are like.
2006-11-13 15:03:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋