i would like to know what everyone thinks of stem cell research. a lot of people have very good reasons that support what they think about it. so what are three strong reasons that support what you think about stem cell research?
2007-08-31 11:53:29 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Other - Health
Here's the thing...no one is against stem cell research...at all. The issue here is embryonic stem cell research, which requires the use of a living embryo. Despite this, I wholeheartedly believe in stem cell research.
1) The embryos used are those that are surplus from IVF procedures. Basically, they're either going to be used for research or thrown away. The former seems like a better option, since they have no potential for human life in the first place.
2) Embryonic stem cells have the most potential. People always ask, "Well, why can't we just use adult stem cells?" I kind of wonder "...Do you know ANYTHING about them?" Adult, and even cord blood stem cells are only capable of becoming certain types of cells. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells can become ANYTHING.
3) There are too many people needing genetically similar donors for us not to do this. The amount of donors is ridiculously small as compared to the amount of people that need them.
2007-08-31 12:00:50 · answer #1 · answered by booda2009 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do believe that stem cells are a fascinating field of study that may produce some amazing new treatments for devastating diseases. However, I do have some ethical questions concerning the source of the cells.
Most of the proponents of stem cell research muddy the water by claiming that President Bush banned stem cell research. He absolutely did not. He simply ceased federal funding for research using stem cells from human embryos. Please keep in mind that state governments and private foundations still have the freedom to fund such experiments.
Human fetuses are not the only source of human stem cells. If you run a Q-tip along the inside of your cheek, you will find stem cells. The blood contained in a baby's umbilical cord at birth is full of stem cells. These sources have resulted in very promising steps towards effective therapies for various diseases.
I oppose the use of human embryos in stem cell research, regardless of the source of the embryos. In order to extract the stem cells, the embryo must be destroyed. The destruction of human life is a grave step, and must be evaluated by the highest standards. The presence of other effective sources of stem cells makes embryonic stem cell research less than imperative.
Just because something can be labelled "scientific" does not mean that it is just or right. I am sure that Dr. Mengele considered himself fully justified in the eyes of science as he selected his "test subjects" from the train depot at Auschwitz. In fact, some of the hypothermia research performed by the Nazis has been used to develop technologies that have saved lives. However, no one would agree that those "scientists" were anything more than sadistic monsters. If a scientist wants to play god, let him pay for it himself.
2007-08-31 19:15:22 · answer #2 · answered by exgrunt 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
1.) My sister is a juvenile diabetic. I remember her poor little body laying in the hospital bed when she was diagnosed. She was crying and she asked if she was dying. Seven years old, and she thought she was going to die.
My heart broke. We need a cure.
2.) There are always going to be abortions. Always. Illegal or not, women are going to find a way to have it done and they are going to make damned sure that they have a choice in what happens to their bodies.
It's going to happen, so why not regulate it. Make it safer and cleaner and use those fetus' for a good cause instead of forcing women to go to some back-alley lunatic to have the procedure done.
3.) Intellegent people understand that while it may not be for YOU and YOU may never have an abortion, others do not see it that way. There are too many diseases that need cures and too many new infections that are rapidly growing. Science cannot continue to develop if we do not let it. This is 2007, not 1907, and a lot of these things that people are millions of people suffer from could easily be taken care of if we let science do it's job. Study and break through.
That's all I have to say.
2007-08-31 19:03:52 · answer #3 · answered by Tina 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It could help save lives with the help of embryos that aren't ever even going to become babies. Shouldn't they be used for something
1) Help cure diseases like diabetes, alsimers, ect
2) Put unused embryos to good use.
3) Help scientific development
Bad thing about medical advacment is that we are no longer evolving because we live and reproduce with 'bad' genes. So if some one with cancer in their genetic make up lives to be 80 and has 5 kids those kids are going to pass it on, and the gene still lives. If they die (sorry for being morbid) they will not pass it on.
2007-08-31 19:05:22 · answer #4 · answered by Mal777 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It can only help. It could potentially help a lot of sick people sooner rather than later. They are little, teeny, tiny cells; no one will ever know where they came from.
I have MS and would love to be able to get a job and get through a day again.
2007-08-31 18:59:27 · answer #5 · answered by Flatpaw 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Go for it. The donor wasn't using them anyway.... might as well grow someone with cirrhosis some new liver tissue.
2007-08-31 18:58:44 · answer #6 · answered by tercellulite 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋