Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Question

What is your contention regarding Embryonic Stem Cell research. Keep in mind that:

-Blastocytes, the undifferentiated embryonic cells that scientists would conduct research upon, aren't technically living beings (that's analogous to a seed being tantamount to a fully developed angiosperm).

-the Bush administration has denied public funding for ESCR, but doesn't altogether prohibit it.

-Methods have been devised to study stem cells without a) harming said embryo, or b) using embryos that had already died (atributed to natural causes, of course).

Answer 1

ooh, me, me I can answer....I (as a Christian) feel that embryonic stem cell research is a positive thing...I had 2 embryos that went to blastocyst stage, yet did not "implant" into the lining, they were never considered alive since they did not implant. There is so much we could learn from this scientific advancement, but unfortunately too many people are not educated on this particular subject and they feel that it is a form of murder, it's impossible to kill something that has not taken a life yet, so yes, I'm for it.......

Answer 2

Setting aside for a moment the Religious objection to using ESC’s let’s look at the big picture.

ESCR has made no, none, nada advancements in their supporters claims that they are the avenue to cures for every malady known to man.

Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) on the other hand, particularly that from the amniotic fluid stem cells (which are able to transform into fully grown cells representing each of the three major kinds of tissues found in the body) is producing results one after another, Type 1 Diabetes being the latest.

The next thing to look at is as they say, “follow the money.” ESCR is begging at the government trough while ASCR is rolling along with risk capital investment money. So which looks more promising? Not only that, but the Bush Administration doubled from $300 to $600 million the amount of money that we are spending on adult stem cell research.

So from a strictly secular point of view ESCR is just not the way to go; so why all the hoopla supporting ESCR?

My opinion on that is that the ESCR group is tightly tied to Liberalism’s Culture of Death; abortion and fear that any move away from ESCR would be a blow to abortion rights.

Answer 3

Because embryonic stem cells typically come from embryos either bred especially to be harvested for stem cells and then destroyed, or from 'leftover' embryos after an in vitro fertilization procedure (see Wikipedia) that would also be subsequently destroyed. Both are viewed as murder by a person who believes an embryo to be a human being. However, there are many ways to get stem cells that don't harm any embryos or people - they can be taken, for example, from placentas and umbilical cords after childbirth. Non-embryonic (adult) stem cells are also present in adult human beings, although they're difficult to extract and work with.

Answer 4

Regarding your third point: Actually methods have been devised to find stem cell LIKE cells in other places. But they aren't identical stem cells and the research is not as promising.

I think this whole debate exists for one (and only one) reason: Karl Rove wanted to exploit pro life sentiment so he invented the debate.

Note that in-vitro fertilization does the same thing with regard to embryos, but there's no debate about it.

Answer 5

Embryonic Stem Cell research is absolutely & objectively wrong, for unborn children, for women, for men, for families, for society as a whole.

1. It's a complicated & obscured issue thanks to the sexual revolution & the fallacy that you propagate in your first psuedo-fact. It is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of objective fact the life *does* begin at conception, *not implantation*. The creation of propaganda to the contrary is merely a justification for murder in many different forms--IVF that extracts & fertilizes more eggs than will be injected for implantation included (there *is* a controversy surrounding IVF BTW). Some people may be motivated to lie in this way in an effort to comfort a woman, but in reality it is a deception that leads to exploitation of women. You women, don't let them fool you! Just wait & see what happens if we don't get a brain & some courage to speak up.

2. What does Bush have to do with whether something is wrong or not? I don't agree with his "okay" for the use of "unwanted embryos". Why are they worth any less than a wanted embryo or child? I advocate for the rights of & give worth to defensless unborn children from conception not because it's moral, but because the Almighty Creator gives them unalienable rights & worth by virtue of their existence & because Jesus Christ died to redeem them body & soul. For us to presume otherwise is just plain idolatry that leads to murder.

Besides that, it isn't the responsibility of the Executive branch to create law, but it's the Legislative branch's responsibility. That they're not doing their job to protect equal rights is a travesty & why I do what I can to urge them to.

3. (a) It is also a lie that methods (i.e. human cloning that empties the egg of its insides, etc.; basically creating life for the purpose of destroying it) have been devised to use embryonic stem cells without harming a life. (If someone removed 60-80% of your cells, I'd like you to testify that you haven't been harmed!). (b) This matters very little when you consider the fact that embryonic stem cell research has not one cure or treatment to its name. It is adult stem cell research, *which does not necessitate the destruction of human life*, that is yielding treatments & cures.

(Just a note to the wise: Do not mistake me for a fundamentalist.)

Answer 6

The problem is that a human embryo is a human _life_. It is only human. It cannot be anything else (barring the intelligent design of some genetic engineer). It is not that it could _become_ human, it _is_ human. It is not fully developed, true enough. But it is no less human. And it is no less _living_. Just like the seed for a Western Red Cedar tree is in fact the life of a Western Red Cedar. Undeveloped? yes. Immature? yes. Living? yes!

Answer 7

I believe that stem cell research may lead to many advancements in health care, and I would like nothing more than to see the U.S. at the forefront of this field of research. While President Bush has effectively blocked federal money from going into the research, states are not limited in the same manner. It would be nice to see rational thought supercede fundamentalist scare tactics just once in the U.S.

Answer 8

personally, i believe that we need to support stem cell research. It could bring about some major positive change! But as with all good, someone will take it, twist it, tweak it, and turn it into something bad.

Tis the way of the world....unfortunately

Blessed Be

Answer 9

A blastocyst is indeed a living being. He/she is there so he/she is a being. He/she is composed entirely of living cells, so he/she is living. And his/her DNA is completely and specifically human, so he/she is human. Therefore a living human being is present. I would never accept a treatment knowing that another human being had been killed in order to take from him/her the parts needed to fix me.

Obviously there is no moral issue with using adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells.
.

Answer 10

I am all for Stem Cell Research as long as it is not an embryo. If we allow them use dead embryos then dead embryos would start showing up suddenly. As long as what they are using does not have the potential for becoming a baby if left alone, then go for it!