There has been a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not much with embryonic. Should we funnel money for that research? Also, scientists discovered methods of creating embryonic stem cells without destroying human embryos...would you support this research?
2007-08-03 07:20:42 · 32 answers · asked by Jasmine 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
well..if I supported funding embryonic stem cell research, than I would also support finding methods to create them. Afterall, you have to study them, to replicate them. And yes, I support it. It made great advances in 1996 before the reserach was gagged by RTL. I remember, because my brother became a quadriplegic that year. I also am informed enough to know that abortions are NOT used in this research, and I also know that Bush had his daughters through a fertility clinic..the places that they destroy these fetuses if they are not used..either by the parents or research. So, the man who vetoed the legislation, did so knowing that he was destroying his OWN fetuses..and denying people access to a better quality of life
2007-08-03 07:34:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If a lot of reputable scientists think this type of research is extremely promising, who am I to say they are wrong? And the embryonic stem cells we are talking about are leftover embryos from fertility treatments. If they are not used for research, they will just be flushed down the toilet. Why would that be better?
2007-08-03 07:24:38 · answer #2 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like you've fallen into the neo-conservative semantics trap. Adding "embryonic" to the stem cell debate makes it sound like we're cutting up babies. The truth is that the stem cells are harvested before any differentiation has begun, just days into a pregnancy, and when all cells are stem cells, and they're no more than a very tiny lump.
Yes, I support funding of stem cell research. Evidence to date suggests it may offer solutions to many problems.
2007-08-03 08:18:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It boils down on your theory in the function of government. there has been little or no promising analyze on its advantages (I analyze and artwork in the sector of biochemistry). it is likewise very high priced analyze and that i will flow away out the ethical debate. If the interior maximum sector does not see a earnings or promise of progression sooner or later, they gained't positioned money into it. Charities have, on the main section, no longer invested in it the two. So, do you think it is the tax payer's money that would desire to fund a severe value severe hazard it became for no longer challenge? that's somewhat like the severe velocity rail device that Obama is pushing and four states are battling to end. there is minimum public help, that's high priced, and it will stay high priced sooner or later without ever being funds independent or gaining adequate hassle-loose stable to justify. some human beings have faith that that's what government's function is. investment stuff that the final public won't fund for some human beings's suggestions of morality...It incredibly relies upon on your perspectives
2016-10-09 03:34:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume you mean federal funding seeing as private funding of stem cell research is already perfectly legal and going on as we speak.
Adult stem cells seem vastly more promising at first glance. However, understand that we have worked with them for twice as long as embryonic stem cells. If there is a possibility that we may be able to cure people of debilitating diseases, I am all for it.
2007-08-03 07:23:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for the research, even though they haven't come up with a single thing to date, but no federal funding! Unless it is in the form of a very low interest loan to be paid back at a later date.These research companies get federal monies to develop a product, put it on the market at very high prices, make millions of dollars off of it and the tax payers never get their money back.
Keep the government out of it. It has to stay private.
2007-08-03 07:40:36 · answer #6 · answered by From Yours Trully 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, from umbilical cords. Not from embryonic stem cells. What diseases have we found the cures for from stell cell research? I'm just curious. Everyone says it's so successful, but I never hear the true success stories. Anyone?
2007-08-03 07:25:56 · answer #7 · answered by tigrompy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course! Sometimes we have to explore a couple different avenues of research to find the answers we're looking for. I wouldn't support creating embryos just for the purpose of destroying them, but I don't think that's really an issue because there are so many ways around that.
2007-08-03 07:25:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it's a very valid area to study because the potential gains could be enormous.
I don't support any govt funding for anything as a general rule -- but I strongly encourage universities and companies and people to contribute to such research.
2007-08-03 07:26:02 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
yes for sure.
we would be able to treat so many diseases, such as parkinson's, cancer, and any spinal cord injuries.
I understand the whole pro-life view of embryos being human, and needing protection. But when they're already dead, and the choices comes between just throwing the embryo out, or using it to save countless people's lives....well that's a non-brainer.
2007-08-03 07:22:53 · answer #10 · answered by Cristina 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋