How can someone not support stem cell research?

Question

We have the best doctors in the world.
The best universities in the world.
We have billions of dollars and the most skilled researchers.

Yet we'd rather dispose embryos that were not used in an "in vitro" fertilization. Instead of donating them to research with the proper authorization from the donor. Such research could in the future save your parent's life or even your own...

How can you oppose that?

Answer 1

The Dickey Amendment is the name of a piece of federal legislation passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. HHS funding includes the funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Technically the Dickey Amendment is a "rider" to other legislation, which amends the original legislation. The rider receives its name from the name of the Congressman that originally introduced the amendment, Representative Jay Dickey. The Dickey amendment language has been added to each of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations acts for FY1997 through FY2004. The original rider can be found in Section 128 of P.L. 104-99. The wording of the rider is generally the same year after year. For FY2005, the wording prohibits HHS from using FY2005 appropriated funds for:

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code). For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

Embryonic stem cell research is not outlawed, it just has to be paid with private donations, instead of tax money. You should not be able to force people to donate to something with their tax dollars, that goes against their religious beliefs.

Answer 2

You're misrepresenting the issue - otherwise you're buying into the misrepresentations of others.

Nobody is against stem cell research. Some people are against cloning human embryos for the purpose of creating new stem cells - they don't think we should create new human life for the purpose of killing it and using it for research. Hitler's doctors' experiments on the infirm and other prisoners did produce data that has been used by scientists - that's obviously many steps further but the conservatives on this issue feel that it's a slippery slope. I'm not saying I agree with them but it's a valid, legitimate ethical argument. But even most of these people don't oppose privately-funded programs using cloned embryos - they just oppose spending taxpayer dollars to clone embryos.

My problem on this issue is the dishonesty of the liberals - they misrepresent the issue to be a proposed ban on stem cell research. Simply put there are adult stem cells and you might not get as good a yield in terms of usable stem cells thus the cost might increase but materials costs aren't the major cost factor with research - facilities costs and the salaries of the scientists are. But pretending there aren't adult stem cells or aren't enough adult stem cells or that the adult stem cells that are usable aren't as good or that the source of the stem cells affects the quality or speed of the research, all of which are completely false, is dishonest.

It is also dishonest to represent that people who oppose public funding of something want it banned.

But we get this all the time from the Left - religious conservatives opposed spending community arts program money on what they considered offensive art (e.g., "Pisschrist") - maybe it wasn't offensive, all art is subjective, whatever, but at no time did anyone claim that the artwork should be banned - they just didn't want it to be subsidized with taxpayer dollars. If some rich arts patron wanted to fund the exhibit, the social conservatives didn't oppose that. Agree or disagree with this position but you can't honestly call it censorship, yet the Liberals did.

That's my big issue with Liberals. Have your own opinions but don't misrepresent the other side's opinions and don't misrepresent the facts.

Answer 3

Well,

There are different types of stem cells. Embrionic stems cell research has yielded zero successes, whereas adult and umbylical stem cell research has yielded almost one-hundered successes. Therefore, if you have money to spend, is it best spent on the ones that are proven to work, or ones that are not proven to work?

Second, the issue is not the research. The issue is federal dollars funding said research. There are moral implications to embrionic stem cell research that are not present in other stem cell researchblocks, namely the similarities to cloning that is involved in the research process. Therefore, should federal dollars support a segment of research without any successes that has moral and ethical ambiguities, or should federal resreach support proven segments and lines without moral ambiguities?

Third, there is the provate sector. If it is such a great potential, then the provate marketplace will provide the research. If you blieve in it so much, then take out a bank loan, start a business, and research embrionic stems cells. Your payoff is the patents.

The fact is the whole controversy is about a bunch of scientists who want to extort money from the federal government so they can continue to work without having to provide an income for themselves in the private sector. If you do some more research on this topic, you will find that GWB was the 1st president to fund embrionic stem cell research with federal dollars. He just limited the scope of the research because of moral gray areas and limited success of the program.

That is how I can oppose that.

Answer 4

Doctors and scientists can do embryonic stem cell research. It just takes money that the government is not willing to pay. I'm sure there's an embryonic stem cell research organization you can donate to if you would like.

The reason people are not investing in this is that it has proven no good results, only that it causes tumors.
Amniotic stem cells, on the other hand, have been proved to be effective, and they don't take the life of an embryo.

Answer 5

Like you said, we have the best the world has to offer in the realms of technology and medicine, yet we live in the Middle Ages when it comes to experimenting on the basic building blocks of our bodies, of course, I refer to stem cells. My argument is how are stem cells any different than if I clip my fingernail and toss it aside? It is a part of my body, built from cells, it is essentially alive, it carries my DNA, yet my fingernail has no rights on its own.

It is as logical as looking at a doctor and saying, "No you can't have my fingernail, it is part of me, it is alive; I don't care if conducting research on it will save my life or not!"

Answer 6

I think you know why it is opposed, and who opposes it.

Pro-lifers oppose the creation (and destruction) of embryos for research.
Libertarians and Conservative Republicans oppose using government money to fund pets.

This is a state question. Send the vote to the states.

Answer 7

Support...

Answer 8

I support stem-cell research just not embryonic stem-cell research.

Answer 9

What is it going to take for people to UNDERSTAND that we are currently funding Stem Cell Research. It's not illegal to use embryonic stem cells. The government just won't pay for it. Please read up on the subject. You will have much less stress and confusion if you understood that this is NOT an issue. We fund non embryonic stem cell research and it is bringing results. The embryonic has been a bust according to the researchers. Throwing money at it will not give them results.

Answer 10

If scientists find out how life works it could debunk "intelligent design." Blasphemy! You blasphemer! You could be excommunicated from the republican party for that, you know.