Stem cell research-is there really a question of morality?

Answer 1

Of course. It is immoral to prevent the investigation of new cures for disease merely based on one's own personal superstitious dogma.

Answer 2

The only reason people think there's a moral issue surrounding it is due to ignorance and being told inaccuracies by their pastors.

A stem cell is taken 3 days after conception, it's a blastocyst and not even an embryo yet. It's microscopic and made of 150 cells. That sounds like a lot but consider that there are over 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. If you regard 150 human cells to be independent life (or even potential life) then you are committing a massive holocaust every time you scratch yourself. (Any cell in the human body is potential life with our current technologies).

The only real argument forwarded is that the soul enters at conception - which has a host of problems. For one thing, more than 50% of blastocysts and embryos die within a few days and are aborted naturally before the woman even realizes she's pregnant. This means that if the soul enters at conception more than half of all souls never get a chance at all. Which naturally requires some explaining - of course theologians have failed to offer one.

More problematic still is that blastocysts around the 3-6 day mark are unstable and can split into two (identical twins), which leaves the question of what happens to that soul - does it split in two? Does god anticipate it and put two souls in ahead of time? What about if the blastocysts combine again (and become a "chimera") what happens then?

Now if you take two or three harvested stem cells the religious will argue that each one ALWAYS has a soul... however, for IVF (fertilization method) doctors usually put 3 stem cells in with the hopes one of them will grow. It's not uncommon for two of these separate blastocysts to combine and become a chimera. Now the problem is that both of these supposedly had souls but what happens when they merge?

Many theologians try to ignore this, while many are still struggling with a solution.

The fact is that stem cells are the most promising field of medicine ever discovered. There is no way to exaggerate the possibilities. Other countries have already been able to have human body parts (such as most of a jaw lost to surgery) regrow/regenerate. They've been able to fix severed spines in rats which means we could cure ALL handicapped people in wheelchairs! Millions of lives would be saved and improved each year.

That it is moral to help living beings and not a tiny cluster of cells (less potential life and less cells than a single drop of sperm) should be indisputable. But sadly, the religious are clinging to their outmoded dogma, ignoring facts, making idiotic statements, and otherwise making a mess of things again.

Answer 3

Stem cell research in and of itself is not a question of morality. How those cells are obtained is.

Currently processes require the destruction of a human fetus to obtain the cells. Anytime a human life (or even potential life) is placed at risk, harmed or destroyed, there had better be moral questions raised. Protecting human life should always be a question of morality.

If alternative methods of harvesting stem cells can be developed, such as from embryoic fluid or the palenta cord, then many of the moral questions with such research would be removed.

Answer 4

My personal opinion is that, if the stem cells are not taken from an aborted embryo, blastocyst, or whatever you want to call it,then, yes, there are several moral issues and potential moral issues.
The fact is that stem cells can be safely harvested without aborting any babies, and that this reseach is actually showing more success than with aborted tissue. Of course, this is NOT information pro-abortion people want you to know about.
And here's more information you are not supposed to hear about. What about huge laboratories who want to patent such things as genes, for goodness sake, and then charge HUGE amounts of money for any research done with them. Are these people holding back important research? Is there a question of morality here?

Answer 5

You have to differentiate between fetal stem cells which require taking a life and adult stem cells which do not.

Fetal stem cells have never shown any real promise to produce the sought after results, and require killing an unborn human child to access them, so no to them.

Adult stem cells, however, which do NOT require killing an unborn child, have shown great promise. They are harvested from umbilical cords for instance.

So the real question is not as to the morality of stem cells per se, but as to why the emphasis keeps being put on FETAL stem cells....

Let's get about the business of exploring the adult stem cell research where there is no question about morality.

Answer 6

No. Stem cells are in no way human. The proposed cells which would be used will be thrown away if they are not donated to stem cell research. And I mean literally thrown away by being dumped in a trash can full of medical waste.

Some churches are afraid that stem cell research might lead to more abortions. Other churches feel that artificial insemination itself is immoral [stem cells would come from the unused by products of this procedure]. Many just see a way to get back at science which they see as the enemy.

There is no biblical basis for the ban on research. It is a total modern church power play.

Answer 7

As long as it is conducted on embryos that will be destroyed anyway, I don't think so. If anything, there is a question of morality in in vitro fertilization.

Once we start using other sources of embryos for research, we start getting onto thinner ice. I'm not an advocate of "slippery slope" arguments, but we do have to recognize that it could be a slippery slope taking us closer and closer to making babies to experiment on.

Personally, I support it, but there are certainly some questions of morality.

Answer 8

Not really.
The only people that are up in arms are those that think that abortion should be a crime. And that if we use the cells from the abortion to help people- it's a crime. And that the Patriot Act was a good idea. And that the First Amendment should be repealled. And that Christianity should become the official religion of the USA. And....

Answer 9

of course, just as there was a question of morality on experimentation on prisoners, on the mentally handicapped, on those considered 'subhuman'. Embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of a living human embryo. that involves a moral judgment.

Answer 10

stem cell research is fine to me. The embryonic research is dangerous water to tread on.

Answer 11

Psalms 139:16; Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing......

Only God has the wright to give or take life. . I can say for me it is not ok. If God sees us even as a "embryo" then to me it would mean that if some one destroyed that "embryo" that they would be taking a life of someone that God sees. Man may not see it as a person but God does. It should be Gods view that we follow.