A brief summary of both sides and their arguments, please.
2007-11-08 08:38:42 · 6 answers · asked by thnbgr1 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
interesting that the "pro-life" label swindlers
do not stampede up to shout, "MURDER!!"
as stem cells are actually embryonal cells
this was indeed my main objection, although
I am an "arch-liberal" supporter of science.
since april, we have new results, it seems like
soon stem cells can be derived from skin, too.
would make one of my last reluctances cut.
(remains: little transparency provided by the
corporate universities and usa med industry, i.e.
monsanto will eventually try to patent your genes)
the pros are innumerable, intruding to cells with no
or just minimal collateral effects, repairing the genes,
defeat of pathological cell energy deficites entirely.
arms and legs could grow again after amputations,
cancer might turn to history possibly also.
2007-11-08 08:50:40 · answer #1 · answered by Will 2 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Pro - this is a promising new field of medicine that holds hope for genetic-flaw diseases and injuries.
Pro - the Blastocyst used are unneeded discards from infertility procedures
Con - the Blastocyst, a ball of 80 or so cells is a baby, and it is ok to throw it away, but not use it for creating cell lines.
2007-11-08 08:52:05 · answer #2 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
pro: advancing science, curing disease, helping people.
con: a misunderstanding of science and what stem cells are, and a need for christian fundamentalists to tell other people what to do.
2007-11-08 08:55:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Stem Cell research is a theory - they "MAY" find cures . . . The cells that they are attempting to obtain are from Fetuses. Basically, they are creating and killing test tube babies because what they are researching may or may not help . . .
I honestly don't see a pro for the practices that are in place now.
2007-11-08 08:46:38 · answer #4 · answered by vinsa1981 3 · 2⤊ 7⤋
I believe the debate isn't about actual research but about whether government should fund it. If everthing was as promising as some would have us think there would be enough private investors.
2007-11-08 08:43:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 8⤋
Pro - Medical advancement with potential cures for uncurable ailments and diseases.
Con - The boogeyman .
2007-11-08 08:42:27 · answer #6 · answered by Tony P 2 · 2⤊ 9⤋