What is the controversy with stem cell research?

Question

This is debate territory!

Are you for it, against it? Why?

Give examples to support your work. Best arguments (with supporting evidence) gets "Best Answer" + 10 points!

First explain the topic, then give debate away!

Answer 1

It is fetal stem cell research that is controversial. Not stem cell research per se.

There are those who make an agrument that is compelling to me.

No one can say exactly when a fetus becomes a human beeing. Is it at the second trimeste, third trimester, when brain developed 50%, 80%, etc.

Since the taking of human life is such a serious moral offense there is a moral imperative to presume that human life begins at the moment of conception--until someone can come up with clear and convincing evidence which rebuts that.

Ebryonic stem cell research results in the death of a fetus. Per the above argument doing good reserach no more justifies it than it would the destruction of any other human being.

Answer 2

The debate, or really the controversy, over stem cell research is that it is done on fetuses frozen that were originally frozen to be used in future pregnancies but will not be used that way. Rather than allow someone else to use them for a pregnancy, most couples have them destroyed or allow them to be used in stem cell research.

Originally, I was for it since I thought that this research would give those fetuses some purpose for existence. Their existence could result in saving a life or another great cure for some horrible disease. I figured better that then just throwing them away.

However, most of the research has found that stem cells from these fetuses are not helpful. Researchers have found some promise in adult cells, but very little promise from the stem cells of these fetuses. Perhaps, more research will find something, but it doesn't look like it. Not knowing how this works, I am wondering if perhaps stem cell research on these fetuses is useless.

Answer 3

The debate mainly concerns how to conduct fetal stem cell research.

American fertility clinics create many fertilized eggs for each client. Most clients go on to have several implanted, and become pregnant; this leaves some fertilized eggs that the woman does not need/want implanted. The normal disposal of these cell clusters is to incinerate them as medical waste.

Researchers want to use these cell clusters for stem cell research. Fetal cells are much more interesting scientifically than adult or placenta stem cells. Fetal cells are completely undifferentiated, and are capable of developing into any type of human cell - heart, bone, liver, skin etc.

The debate is between science and religious groups, who content the disgarded cells are still potential life and should not be used for research. This completely ignores the fact that the cells will be destroyed anyway; they stand NO chance of becoming an actual fetus in a womb.

Answer 4

The controversy with stem cell research is that it harvests the stem cells from fetuses. We have a large group of people called Conservatives that believe abortion is killing. The death penalty is "eye for and eye" not killing. It's how you look at it I guess.
The truth is stem cell therapy has nothing to do with killing anything. Stem cells can be used from fetuses where the cells have stopped dividing. If a cell does not have the ability to divide it is impossible for the fetus to grow.
After fertilization in vitro, a high percentage of human embryos that reach the 4- or 8-cell stage undergo spontaneous “cleavage arrest”—that is, their cells simply stop dividing. The vast majority of these arrested embryos do not resume cell division, never form blastocysts, and are incapable of successfully implanting in the uterus. In most cases, spontaneous cleavage arrest is associated with chromosomal abnormalities in the cells of the developing embryos. Yet some of the arrested embryos turn out to be “mosaic”—that is, some of their cells exhibit chromosomal abnormalities, while others appear to be (chromosomally, at least) normal blastomeres. It is these normal-appearing blastomeres in cleavage-arrested, mosaic embryos that may turn out to be a source of embryonic stem cells. Landry and Zucker propose that those embryos that have undergone irreversible cleavage arrest should be declared organismically dead and hence suitable (with proper consent) for harvesting of blastomeres for stem cell derivation.vii

It is not killing to use these stem cells. It is upsetting this has become a political issue. It is not a political issue or a controversy until the evil conservatives saw it as a way to control people's voting practices. This country dodged a bullet by throwing the crimminal conservative republicans out of office.

Answer 5

If stem cell research involves the utilization of aborted fetus's then it is wrong, as is abortion is the killing of an innocent life. If we open a path to injustice, then we open a door to lack of conscience.

The upside to this, is that science should be more fruitful in terms of technology, to regenerate cells by other means. For example, cloning could involve using the genetic information stored in the carriers family genes.

Answer 6

The debate is wether aborted babys fetus' should be allowed for use in stem cell research and wether or not it is okay to clogne fetus' specifically for the purposes of stem cell research. I have no opinion on the issue.

Answer 7

I'm for it. I'll start with abortion.

Abortion: 1. Women are going to keep getting abortion whether it's illegal or not. The only decision is whether you want them to get them done safely in a sterile environment with very little risk to the woman, or if you want them to get it done in a dirty barber shop with a coat hanger that is likely to cause internal bleeding and death. 2. As long as abortions are going to happen, and as I showed they should remain legal, then the stem cells that result from them should be aloud to be used to help cure other people.

Stem Cells: Stems cells can potentially cure, or at least drastically improve, current illnesses. How is this a bad thing?

None of the above: If both abortion and stem cell research are illegal, we have a total lose/lose/lose situation on our hands. The woman getting an abortion loses because she's at higher risk. The potential baby loses either way. And, people who are currently alive and sick lose because stem cells are not aloud to help them.

All of the above: If both are legal, the mother wins because she can safely have her abortion performed. The people who are sick and who could benefit greatly from the stem cells win because their illnesses can possibly be cured. The only one who loses is the potential baby, which is sad, but this is going to happen either way. Women who want them will always find a way to get an abortion.

Answer 8

The controversy in my mind is that the liberals like to try to act like stem cell research (adult stem cell research) and "embryonic stem cell research" are the same thing.

I have never heard anyone against adult stem cell research. Many are against embryonic stem cell research because they are against abortions, and approving the use of aborted fetus' (would that be feti?) justifying abortion, or justifying killing of a baby, and the gov't should not pay for killing of babies.

Incedentaly, adult stem cell research has created many advances, where as embryonic stem cell research has not. It is just thought to be "hopefull" of doing so.

Answer 9

our president can not allow that because its against his Christan beliefs. nuf said and i'm for it. what is it going to hurt because the embryos are going to be flushed down the toilet anyway so why not use then to find a cure for the horrible diseases we face now. I lost my oldest brother to Parkinson's disease. I wounder just how religious that Idiot would be it his brother wad dying with that.