As familiar as it seems, this's one question I believe mankind has yet to resolve.
2007-01-13 15:38:43 · 6 answers · asked by Willy 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
I am all for it! My reason, I am a type 1 diabetic, open-minded, aware of the magnitude stem cell research has on western medicine and attended a funeral this week for a lovely woman who lost her fight with cancer. I realize the moral objection but ponder what Bush and all other objectors would vote if they had a very close loved one with terminal cancer or another disease that could be cured with stem cell transplantation. I also see that pharmaceutical companies have a big pull with the government and that scares me. I could live a normal life without 4-5 injections a day and the risk of serious complications if this research is allowed. My husbands boss wouldn't have lost his exceptional wife last Sunday morning who fought a hard fight at cancer if this research could have been passed back when it first came to light that it can cure cancer. Fetus' and embryo's are aborted every day by women who could end up with these diseases that kill and we allow that; what's the difference if the embryo is in a petri-dish or human body?
2007-01-13 19:18:29 · answer #1 · answered by chrissy757 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thanks, Willy, for the challenge! I think this is a two edge sword. Both sides have great points for/great points against. This is where is gets hairy. My personal beliefs are faith based. I know that we make decisions like this based on our own personal lives, and experiences.
The empryo drives straight into a cul-de-sac, so to say. We need the scientific and medical information it provides, but who has the final choice to decide at which point it remains or is no longer an embryo but a fetus?
Also, who gets to decides if it has rights as an embryo (legally it falls back on the legal rights of the mother) or if it has quranteed rights as person at the point that it becomes a legal fetus?
Keep in mind that the answers change before the time of birth or the discovery of a heartbeat. The realistic answer is, the person who has the best legal mind, i.e. lawyer, wins in court. Having great finances also could be an asset.
Thanks again. Touche'!
2007-01-13 16:27:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's only a controversy in the deluded minds of fundamentalists, who think a clump of only 100 cells has more "rights" than full-grown people suffering from real diseases. To put it into even sharper perspective, the brain of a fly contains about 100,000 cells!
It's far past the time when the fundies of the world need to be ignored again. Let them craw back under their rocks and play with their snakes (and I volunteer to provide as many venomous ones as they want).
2007-01-13 16:03:20 · answer #3 · answered by hznfrst 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There have been some viable stem cell alternatives coming from other sources. Embryos that have been targeted for stem cell research are those that will be discarded as medical waste anyway, so I don't understand what the big fuss is about.
2007-01-13 15:50:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush has done a number of sensible things, but opposing this is definitely not one of them.
2007-01-13 16:01:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
LET THE [PEOPLE DO THEIR JOBS.
2007-01-13 15:42:54 · answer #6 · answered by freddelorme35 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋