why or why not. If so what contribution do u think it my bring to the medical world
2007-01-23 07:07:49 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Yes.
The argument against it is silly and short-sighted. If abortions and wasted embryos are a problem, those who perceive these things as a problem should be more concerned about the REASONS these problems occur, rather than their legality or the various byproducts of these problems.
For example: To me, cigarette smoking is a problem. Instead of opposing its legality or various positive byproducts of smoking like a rise in Phillip Morris stock, I feel that the best thing I can do is oppose claims that "smoking is cool/fun/sophisticated/sexy" or that "everyone is doing it." Even though smoking, like abortion, hurts other people, I think that if no one had a reason to smoke, then it's legality or the price of Phillip Morris stock wouldn't be an issue.
2007-01-23 07:46:08 · answer #1 · answered by j n 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ambiotic fluid stem cell research is proving just as effective as Embryonic Stem cell research. Many many cures for diseases will come from this research. The down side to this is if ambiotic stem cell takes the place of embryonic stem cell research, I believe the abortion industry would be the big loser. Maybe even overturning Roe. Supply and demand you know. The money backing the abortion industry could be reduced quite a bit. Call you congressman see what he thinks.
2007-01-23 07:17:53 · answer #2 · answered by KIB 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stem cell research yes, embryonic no. The whole argument behind embryonic stem cells has nothing to do with science, but rather to keep abortion legal. The pro choice movement is afraid that if an embryo is considered a life form, then abortion will be overturned.
The majority of scientists who work with stem cells say the umbilical chord stem sells are just as viable for use as embryonic.
This is NOT a fight about treating disease, it is a fight about abortion.
2007-01-23 07:12:44 · answer #3 · answered by FRANKFUSS 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the embryos are going to be lost anyway through abortion, why waste that opportunity to save lives? Using the embryonic stem cells from lost pregnancies or aborted pregnancies in the long run can save so many lives it seems so ridiculous to argue over it.
We focus so much on the "moral" issues of this and the actual medical issues. Stem cell research will save more lives than it will take.
2007-01-23 07:13:07 · answer #4 · answered by quatrapiller 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In my opinion, stem cell research in all forms should be supported, as it will most likely prove fruitful. However, embryonic stem cell research comes with some religious and philosophical baggage, so if somebody were to be against it, I would certainly understand. I would disagree, but I would understand.
2007-01-23 07:29:19 · answer #5 · answered by Chord 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stem cell research should definitely be done. It could change peoples lifes. If successful it could help a deaf person hear, a blind person see and all possibilities are positive. What is a good argument that it should not happen. I havent heard one, that is disregarding any religious argument.
2007-01-23 07:12:18 · answer #6 · answered by Shmesh 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think if you or your child needed the stem cell that you or I would jump for it. There is an ethical portion of this question that's not easy to answer. I try to put myself into the shoes of others before I say it is wrong. I think it should be allowed. I am for it.
2007-01-23 07:13:40 · answer #7 · answered by cookie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes! Let them get on with it! We all may need a new kidney or liver in the future. They would be a perfect match and in theory they could grow any organ that you might need. The embryo the stem cells are obtained from doesn't have a consciousness so why not!
2007-01-23 07:15:30 · answer #8 · answered by WibbleWibble 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think we should approach it logically. ADULT stem cell research has proven useful, as has research based on umbilical cords. HOWEVER, stem cells derived from aborted fetuses have provided NO breakthroughs. They have only wasted taxpayer money. That particular branch of research should indeed be abandoned both on moral AND pragmatic grounds.
2007-01-23 07:26:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its better to feel that we should do stem cell research rather than have a broken back and not feel your legs.
2007-01-23 07:11:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋