ANSWERS: 17
  • I assume because until recently research has required tissue from foetuses. So the issue becomes tied in with the "right to life" debate. However recent advances have resulted in stem cell advances from other sources (particularly in reversing the genetic make up of a patient's cells to revert the to the "stem cell" period). SO that controversy should be avoidable. I dare say there are other objections, new advances always have their detractors. Take the use of anaesthetic in the 19th century which was opposed by religious elements particularly because it could be used to relieve the pain of child birth which was of course God's curse on women and to defy his curse was evil. But i imagine the foetal issue is paramount. I am all for it in case you hadn't guessed. Sure there will be further problems and issues with it but the potential benefits are simply staggering.
  • The short answer is: because the fundies really haven't thought their own argument through. Most are more than willing to harvest organs for transplant from brain-dead adults; so clearly they are willing to treat certain humans as "less-than-human" for utilitarian purposes. Concerns for the "suffering" of the harvested blastocyst are specious -- at only 150 undifferentiated cells, the donor doesn't even have nerve or brain cells, and would thus be incapable of suffering or feeling pain as we understand the concept. And metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about "souls" entering into the cell at the moment of conception is similarly unfounded. There's no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of the soul.
  • Tinkerbell, are you for it? Count me on your side.
  • I am all for it..150%
  • ignorace caused the controversy-but there seems to be no shortage of that-as for my position i am in favor of mankind gaining as much knowledge as we can-our brains and our ability to reason are what put us at the top of the food chain on these planet think that we should continue with a winning formula---just my thoughts-smile and enjoy the day
  • Personally I'm all for it. The fact that we're talking about undifferentiated cells that are in no way sentient human life is one thing. But what bothers me most is the fact that if these embryos are not used they're eventually consigned to the "rubbish heap." Why is actually using the cells from these embryos to enhance and save existing human lives given a bad rap, while the wholesale destruction of them, with no purpose having been served, is considered okay?
  • I am for it as long as it is not embryonic and as long as it does not involve aborted or dead babies, cloning people, or anything of that nature. Thank you and may God bless you. :) -In Jesus' Name.
  • As long as they get the stem cells from the umbilical cord and placentas of babies that are born, I'm all for it. There's no need to use embryos to get stem cells.
  • I don't think abortion is great, but we're not going to stop people from doing it. So instead of throwing the specimen away, why not honor it by using it to save another human life? I'm all for it 100%.
  • I am all for it. I don't see why we shouldn't use aborted fetuses to help save lives of existing people, instead of just throwing them out. It's also a good idea to get them from umbilical cords too, when I have kids, I am going to donate the umbilical cords to help research. Oh, and I think the controversy is between religion and science for this one. There is an ethics issue about the use of fetuses, and whether they had a soul.
  • Mostly because the facts become confused, and there is a double-standard on the moral/ethical value cited in opposition to embryonic stem cell research. Many of the embryos come from fertility clinics, which fertilize many embryos and only implant one. The rest are thrown out. This is standard in-vitro practice. Those embryos are created and discarded anyway. Yet, you don’t see them protesting in-vitro clinics. Instead of researching with these embryos, they are just thrown away anyway. Apparently experimenting for stem cell research on these embryos is unethical, but creating them just to discard them is not. Failing to save and improve people’s lives with this research is also apparently not unethical. It is more ethical to create these embryos and toss them away. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689196,00.html) Go figure. Personally, I’m all for stem cell research, even embryonic.
  • The controversy is because the most powerful stem cells are embryonic stem cells, which can only be extracted (as the name suggest) from embryos. Significant numbers of such embryos are discarded as a result of abortions. Embryonic stem cells could be collected from these, but some people believe that (a) these cells *are* the embryo, so experimenting on them is experimenting on the potential baby, or (b) if they prove useful, people could have conceptions and abortions to provide such cells, which would be immoral. There are other types of stem cell, but they have usually differentiated further than the embryonic ones and are therefore not as capable of forming any tissue at all as the embryonic ones. However, techniques very recently developed seem to offer the ability to "roll back" this development. My own personal view is that where there is no nervous system at all, there is no person, so I am relaxed about the whole thing.
  • Im all for it, i dont see why it is suh a bad thing considering if it doesnt get done they get thrown away i pressume, so whats worse? Throwing it away or using them to save or enhance a life? Like the Reverend so rightly said they havent thought their argument through!
  • Zubradevine makes a good point and I'm hoping that there will be less controversy about it now that they have figured out a way to get these cells from other sources as well. I read an article recently about advances the Japanese have just made in extracting them (I think from skin?).
  • The issue with stem cells, specifically embryotic stem cells is the actions between those wanting the embryos and the abortion racketeers profiting from their practice. They want more abortions to sell more embryos to the stem cell people, and the stem cell people want the abortion practices to continue as well. A lot of the money fighting driving the pro-"choice" which is really the pro-death movement is coming from some of these sources.
  • Blessedly the controversy seems to have died down. It seems like a lot of the most promising research is happening around stem cells.
  • I think the controversy is about the abortion issue rather than the stem-cell issue. I'm for stem cell research I'm opposed to abortion but I don't think it should be illegal.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy