For or against stem cell research?

Question

I'm not trying to start a war, just interested in the general opinion. Personally I think it is wrong.
My partner thinks it is ok and we were having a debate in the car about it this morning, hence the question.

I am suprised at the answers here. Enlightened, but suprised all the same. Stem cell research to me seems a bit like "playing god". Life or death is natural selection and I do not feel that it is ok to screw with that. The world is over populated as it is.

In saying that, my daughter has cystic fibrosis, a respiratory illness that could be cured with stem cells, it is such a hard one for me...... Ethics or the life of my daughter?

Answer 1

I'm against Federal funding of stem cell research. I'm 100% against using aborted babies for testing.

I don't have a problem with stem cells from skin and such being used to test, but not embryos. That is just too scary.

The UK is creating creatures that are made from a mix of animals and humans called Chimeras. They will be testing on them and then killing them. They are considered animals if they have only a small portion of human in them. Where do they draw the line and when does it become human experimentation?

I think this generation has crossed the line and there is no turning back. It is a world of destruction - of life and morality.

Most of today's diseases are preventable.
End the injection of arificial hormones that is causing obesity, cancer, premature aging.
Stop putting chemicals in food that is poison to people.
Stop putting aluminum and plastic in the food - they are attibuted to causing alzeihmers and cancer.
Stop using toxins on your skin that causes cancer.
Stop polluting the environment with chemicals that cause cancer.
Stop telling women that repeated mammograms with radiology is going to prevent cancer - it's causing it.

I'm not saying that we have the answers to all cancers and other diseases. But I am saying that many are contributed to known causes that are not being regulated to prevent the diseases. There has been much good research done to save multitudes of lives from things like the black plague, tuberculosis, aids, etc.

Whatever would the drug companies and scientists do if they had to admit the truth to the other things they know cause diseases? Lose money on drugs and experiments that are unnecessary?

How about the horrible pain the animals must endure just to see how long they can survive acid being poured in their eyes while they break their backs trying to escape the pain of hair dyes or the dishwasher acids and laundry detergents being forced into their stomachs for them to die slow painful deaths just to see how long it takes them to bleed to death.
http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_animal_tests&AddInterest=1022

Answer 2

All medical progress has been made via a number of experiments and some of these have been of a questionable or dubious morality.

Experiments on convicts, certain races, prisoners of war come to mind.

However, the vast majority of stem cell researchers are decent men and women trying to unlock the secrets of human potential. There are certain techniques being pursued that are not immoral, such as adult stem cell research.

Imagine having your child born not only without birth defects, but as an optimizes combination of you and your partner? Their eyes, your resistance to disease, etc.

Imagine that a child crippled by a drunk driver could be grown a new spinal cord? Or curing dementia, Alzheimers or diabetes?

It is the highest calling for one human to relieve the suffering of others. We have been doing this since before we lived in caves.

On a completely pragmatic versus moral tack, if a country cuts itself off from the development of biotechnology, they will be left far behind those that do the research and reap the economic rewards.

Biotechnology will be in 20 years what computer software is now or what making cars was 50 years ago, or steel making 100 years ago.

Whoever is doing it best and most will have the dominant economy.

Morality and pragmatism...two of the best reasons to do anything.

Answer 3

I think stem cell research is good... Stem cells are the only cells that can change into other cells, any type of cell... So in the future when the technology is perfected you will be able to go to the hospital and they will be able to grow you a new heart or liver... The heart or whatever you grow will be your exact match because it will be your DNA... As I understand it the main controversy on human stem cell research is the where the stem cells come from... The human stem cells come from the aborted fetus... I do not like the fact that the stem cells come from the spinal cords of aborted fetus but if the stem cells can possibly used to preserve anothers life then we should use them... I do not condone abortions I think life should be given a chance but since abortions do occur we should collect and study them... What we should fear the most in the future is abortion clinics set up to collect the stem cells for the growing public demand... and there will be much demand... Stem cell research is good for mankind but they need to find a better source for the stem cells.... and they are looking...

Answer 4

Well
Millions of people all over the world are affected by hair loss, and it's not only the males that suffer this condition as even females are affected by this problem. What's sad is that many of the individuals affected by such a condition end up just accepting what is happening to their hair due to lack of information or options.

If you are looking for natural hair regrowth methods this is a good guide you can read http://hairagain.toptips.org
Best

Answer 5

I AM FOR IT ALL THE WAY I lost my son to mps/sanfilippo/type A 2 YEARS AGO
The child's pre-school years may be a very frustrating stage for the parents. They begin to worry as their child starts to lag behind their friends' children in development, and they may feel they are being blamed for the child's overactive and difficult behavior.

The diagnosis is often made very late as some children do not look abnormal, and their symptoms are among the most common seen in all children. The doctor has to be perceptive enough to recognize that something serious is wrong and ask for urine and blood tests to help reach a diagnosis. It is not unusual for families to have one or more affected children before the diagnosis is established. The second phase of the disease is characterized by extremely active, restless and often very difficult behavior. Some children sleep very little at night. Many will be into everything. Many like to chew; hands, clothes or anything they can get hold of.



Sadly, language and understanding will gradually be lost and parents may find it hard not being able to have a conversation with their child. Many will find other ways of communicating. Some children never become toilet trained, and those who do will eventually lose the ability.

In the third phase of the disease children with MPS III syndrome begin to slow down. They become unsteady on their feet, tending to fall frequently as they walk or run. Eventually they lose the ability to walk. Life may be more peaceful in some ways, but parents will need help with the physically tiring task of caring for an immobile child or teenager

Answer 6

I'm all for it. Like you, not looking for a debate, but until it has a personality, it isn't a person. As long as you aren't really harming people ( at least intentionally or with any prior knowledge that it could be harmful ), and it might save my life some day, why would I be against it?

There again, I'm all for any sort of scientific research as long as it doesn't hurt people, and to some extent, animals. I think that the government should have very little bearing on what scientists can and cannot study. What sort of legal ground does one really have to ban cloning research? It's not hurting anyone, and who knows - it might lead to something even greater and more exciting.

Clamping down scientist's freedom on what they can research is really just shooting your self in the foot technologically.

Answer 7

I'm for more research, before I decide whether it is a good thing or not.

There have been lots of mistakes by medical science ending up in disasters and it woud be foolish to think that it couldn't happen again. (does the word 'thalydamide' mean anything to you?)

And there is definitely a potential for missuse.

However it could be a major breakthrough treatment for a lot of pain and suffering. It has the potential to make quality of life for a lot of people, much, much better - maybe yours or someone you know.

I want to know more about the potential uses and missuses, and how and if thats going to be regulated before I get entrenched in a position either way.

Oh, and one more thing, stem cell research is going to happen whether we want it to or not, its just a matter of if and how we embrace it before it goes underground.

(who's prepared to say that it hasn't already?)

Answer 8

I am extremely for it. However, I tend to say the government wastes to much money as it is. If you stop the pork barrel spending let the government subsidize research, if not don't and let it come from the private sector.

Answer 9

you never asked the really tough question. Embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells. There is a significant difference. I personally am for both.

Answer 10

FOR

the right to life begins at birth

It will help a lot of people. If we don't do it, we will fall behind the science being done in other countries.