Why do you feel embryonic stem-cell research in immoral?

Question

Let's put it this way...embryonic stem-cells come from left over fertilized eggs. These eggs are sitting in freezers. These eggs will, eventually, just be thrown away after they are no longer wanted.

Anyway, here's the real question. If you were in a burning building and only had time to take one of the following, which would you rescue?

A) The 3 month old child sitting next to you?
B) The "freezer" with 500 fertilized eggs in it?

If the eggs are human, than 500 human lives would be saved. Right? However, the right choice is to rescue the 3 month old infant.

That being said, why can't we use those fertilized eggs to save a three month old child suffering from (you choose the disease) instead of letting them rot in a "freezer?"

is immoral not, "in immoral"

J.P....You only have time to rescue one or the other. You do not have time to analyze the data of every egg and sperm donor's medical history, look at the quality of the specimen, or look into the viability of each egg.

YOU ARE WRONG!!! You save the living child.

Answer 1

I feel that "these" lives are providing life to others.
I will not judge those that can "See" now due this process.
I will not condemn those that can "WALK" due to this process.
I am not God, just a mere human.
If given any chance to live or save my child, I would use any and all means available to me. Without regret or any feelings of "validation" to strangers for my choices. My God is by my side. That's all I need to know.

Answer 2

Whether or not it is immoral should not be the issue. Did you know that adult stem cells are already used to cure many medical conditions? So far, baby stem cells haven't done a thing except prompt newspapers to theorize that they could change the world in a few years.
You also have to wonder why, if baby stem cells are the key to curing everything (or at least a lot of things), why most private medical businesses haven't started their own research. The answer is: because baby stem cell research is not as successful as adult stem cell research, and not as profitable.

Answer 3

I think the largely negative response to the issue of embryonic stem-cell research is from ignorance. Yes, adult stem-cell research is a "possible" solution, but there is still a greater amount of research needing to be done.

The big difference between the effectiveness in embryonic vs. adult stem-cell treatment, is that the embryonic stem-cells are able to produce greater numbers of specialized cells and that those cells can potentially grown into ANY of the specialized cells that might be required. Adult stem-cells are already, at least in a general sense, specialized and are limited in there use in developing into required tissue.

Please read through the linked wikipedia article and do some additional personal research before weighing in as either a staunch No or Yes on this issue. The only wrong decision is an un-informed one.

Answer 4

Are we so blinded by the promises of the uses of those stem cell that we are not foreseeing the booming on "unwanted pregnancies" that will lead to "illegal abortions" just to make money out of those "unwanted embryos", that were begotten with the only purpose of being sold????

Are we taking into consideration that social impact of the approval of the use of those embryonic stem-cells??

The idea behind the stem-cell research is wonderful, but we have to be very aware of what we are gettting into. Twisted minds are everywhere and we cannot ignore it.

Answer 5

We all were created at conception, our bodies by our parents and our soul by God. We are a body-soul unity. When we deliberately create humans in a laboratory, knowing that they are going to be frozen and not used, it is a sin. This is why the Catholic Church condemns artificial insemination. If you tried to save both the 500 eggs and the 3 year old, and failed, you would not have sinned. If you, however, deliberately left either the embryos or the born child to die, you would have sinned. We can't use the embryo's to save the three year old for the same reason that we can't kill you or anyone else to save the 3 year old. We are persons who have the right to live from the moment of conception. Think of it this way. When would be the most logical time for God to create our spirit. The most reasonable time seems to be at the same moment our body is created.

Answer 6

So what you are saying is that we should be doing human testing instead of animal testing? I am ok with it, but your opening a can of worms. If we allow human testing, humans will want compensation for the testing. Once compensation is involved then there will be an outcry that testing is taking advantage of the poor because unless you need the money why would you allow testing to be done on you? Then if we get past that hurdle we open up another can of worms with the legalities of selling things like say a spare kidney or other organs. Yes I like dogs, however if it came down to the dog or my child, then I will miss the dog I suppose. (we were on the brink of it though until the ban) well I hate tell you, but we are also on the brink of time travel too according to some experts. So between the two I will place my bet with time travel.

Answer 7

For the same reason you wouldn't take stem cells from people in a coma if it resulted in their eventual death. IT'S WRONG, PERIOD. THERE'S NO MORAL GRAY AREA IN THIS ONE. The cells harvested from an embryo result in the death of that eventual person, equalling murder. Adult (or somatic stem cells) doesn't end in the death of the person. You're asking to trade one life to maybe, possibly, hypothetically in the distant future save someone else. Until we set reachable goals and benchmarks as to what we hope to accomplish with embryonic stem cells that we can't do with adult stem cells, it's a big no for me.

Answer 8

That would depend on my calculated probability that of the 500 embryos, sufficient numbers would be implanted and grow to healthy 3 month olds.

If more than one, I would save the embryos. My action would create greater human potential.

If only one, it'd be a coin toss -- both choices are morally equivalent. I'd probably choose the infant as its potential is already actualized.

If none, then the infant.


Further, the use of embryonic stem cells kills a human being. This is the active destruction of a human potential, while only offering passive potential for extending other's human potential.

This is equivalent to the still-going medical ethics debate over whether the research done by Nazi's should be used in modern medical research, considering the source of the data (concentration camp victims). Using the data could passively aid hundreds, thousands, even millions of people -- but does using it justify the active taking of the handful of lives that were taken for this purpose (millions died, yes, only few of those millions were research victims).

I would rather my research come from ethically clear methodology instead of methodology so deeply questionable in its nature.

Answer 9

People shouldn't be able to create that many and freeze them in the first place. They are playing God. It shouldn't be happening. In the second place, they are lives. From the moment of conception it is a human life. So therefore, destroying it is a sin. I don't believe noone wants them. If the people who own them don't want them then they should be offered to families who are unable to have children. They should be brought into this world. I don't understand why people say it's just a bunch of cells when they don't want it, yet when they do want it, and find out they are pregnant(which by the way means you are going to have a BABY, not a bunch of cells)they call everyone they know and say"we're having a baby!" People are so hypocritical. And these hypothetical questions are nice to try and prove your point but they don't work for me because the liklihood of that happening is slim to none. Science needs to find cures without using stem cells or by only using the ones from umbilical cords. Leave human life to live!

Oh, and they aren't eggs we're talking about it's embryonic stem cell research, so therefore , a baby, not egg.

Answer 10

I don't have a problem with embryonic stem-cell research.
And yes, I would save the three-month old child.

If Christian women have a problem with embryonic stem-cell research, then they shouldn't do IVF. What do they think creates the frozen embryos to start with??

Hypocrites.