what is your position on stem cell research?
94543
Against it.\n\nI think doctors have been playing "Frankenstein" for too long now.  Just because they "Can" does not mean they should!!!\n\nDoctors are working as hard as possible to delay death.  What is wrong with death???  I know our society is afraid of death and I think this is insane.  We have no problem murdering babies who are "in the womb" to save another life.  This life being saved  has experience life, and has had the opportunity to exercise their "Free Will", God‘s calling them.   The unborn baby has not has this chance, and we're robbing it of life for an old life who‘s ready to go home.  \n\nEven when an abortion is not necessary for "Stem Cell", I still think that we need to grow up and look death in its face.  We need to live our lives to its best potential.  I think we're insulting God by delaying death.  It's like me saying, hey Mom, give me five more minutes to play my video games... it seems harmless, but dinner got cold...we missed a joyful time with our family.\n\nWhat would I say to God and the unborn child if I were a recipient of Stem Cell?  Thanks for the life force duds…I used it to watch TV and play video games…plus I got to see my niece be born and graduate elementary school???  My conscience couldn’t handle that responsibility.\n\nIs it that we have done so much bad, that we’re afraid to face God?
872031
the best any embryonic stem cells have achieved so far is tumers\nall succesfull so far have been from, adult stem cells and placental stem cells\nthe system of harvesting the eggs from wopman has later dammages caused by the extra hormones pumped into the body of the usually young girl\nall the above are moral as well as physical damaging\nby the koran life begins with the first clot of blood ,so natural harvested may not be sinfull but its the process of harvesting that is the bigger danger\nif science is so clever let them make thioer own stem cells \nbut science cant even make a single cell \nlet that be a sign for the creationists\ntrust man or trust science fraud ,its about the cash they can get from govt for faulse hopes and lies
1138603
Actually adult stem cells are MORE versatile than embryonic ones.  At least to date.\n\nVery little has been accomplished w/ embryonic stem cells, while much has been done w/ mature stem cells.\n\nAnd there are no ethical concerns about mature stem cells.
609684
Yes you are right. Stem cell research has many useful ramifications.
967263
Stem cell research: There are two basic types:\n \nDefinition of a stem cell   \n\nA stem cell is a "generic" cell that can make exact copies of itself indefinitely. In addition, a stem cell has the ability to produce specialized cells for various tissues in the body -- such as heart muscle, brain tissue, and liver tissue. Scientists are able to maintain stem cells forever, developing them into specialized cells as needed.\n\nThere are two basic types:\n\nEmbryonic stem cells - these are obtained from either aborted fetuses or fertilized eggs that are left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF). They are useful for medical and research purposes because they can produce cells for almost every tissue in the body. \n\nAdult stem cells - these are not as versatile for research purposes because they are specific to certain cell types, such as blood, intestines, skin, and muscle. The term "adult stem cell" may be misleading because both children and adults have them. \n\nIn August 2001, President George W. Bush approved limited federal funding for stem cell research. While stem cell research has the potential to provide major medical advances, including cures for many diseases, stem cell research is controversial.\n\nPotential uses for stem cells \n\nThere are many areas in medicine where stem cell research could have a significant impact. For example, there are a variety of diseases and injuries in which a patient's cells or tissues are destroyed and must be replaced by tissue or organ transplants. Stem cells may be able to generate brand new tissue in these cases, and even cure diseases for which currently there is no adequate therapy. Diseases that could see revolutionary advances include Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, cancer, and burns.\n\nStem cells could also be used to gain a better understanding of how genetics work in the early stages of cell development. This can help scientists understand why some cells develop abnormally and lead to medical problems such as birth defects and cancer. By understanding the genetic basis for cell development, scientists may learn how to prevent some of these diseases.\n\nFinally, stem cells may be useful in the testing and development of drugs. Because stem cells can be used to create unlimited amounts of specialized tissue, such as heart tissue, it may be possible to test how drugs react on these specialized tissues before trying the drugs on animals and human subjects. Drugs could be tested for effectiveness and side effects more rapidly.
290660
Pros - Stem cell research allows us to reproduce vital organs in the body and regenerate our own tissue.  It could help us treat and heal previously untouchable diseases like Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's.  It could allow people who were blind to see again, stroke victims or paraplegics to walk again.  It could advance medicine as we know it like the creation of penicillin.\nCons - Bush will hate you
798477
What kind of stem cell research? Embryonic stem cells come from unborn babies, which means you have to kill the most innocent and most defenseless of human life to get the cells. This is what the liberals want to do to increase the number of abortioins in the US and the world. There is no evidence that this type of cell research is going to produce anything of value. If it had any promise, investors would be lining up to put money into it. But they aren't, so the pro-aborts want government (that means "your money") to fund the research.\n\nOn the other hand, adult stem cell research has yielded incredible results. But you can't kill an adult, so the libs aren't interested in this type of research...
1114837
there is no reason to be opposed to stem-cell research. conservatives are stupid about that. people are going to get abortions anyway, so they might as well be used to help find cures to diseases. and as to the oil, the only reason we're still in iraq is to get more oil for george bush's daddy's company. another selfish move by a dumb conservative.
282691
I agree too many! And you others are wrong, stem cell research is still done in privately funded centers, only government funded centers cannot perform stem cell research! Nancy Reagen funds a privately owned  research center
10520
All you need to know is at:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells
994833
No, I think Embryonic stem cell research is not wrong.  Embryonic stem cells are cultured cells obtained from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of an early stage human embryo (sometimes called a blastocyst, which is an embryo that is between 50 to 150 cells). Embryonic stem cell research have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells, according to the National Institutes of Health.  Unlike somatic cells, embryonic stem cells are totipotent.  I think the benefits of Embryonic stem cell research is far greater than anything we have to sacrifice.  \nTechnologies derived from Embryonic stem cell research can be used to treat cancer, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other diseases, impairments and conditions.
831390
no it does not matter, while everyone is ok with adult stem cell, the liberals attack the republicans because they are not for embryonic stem cell research being paid for by tax dollars)\n\nThey merely make it sound like we are against all research which is not the truth, only the funding for embyonic
827911
If you want actual facts, Planned Parenthood, is your best bet.  The best place for basic stem cell facts is the Christopher Reeve Foundation.\n\nForget that abortiontv.com site.  It's completely right-wing religious based with a lot on inaccurate information.
137217
I think there are far too many people who have never actually examined stem cell research that make assumptions about unborn babies being involved. Embryonic stem cells are only a small part of the issue here. I myself have a hard time figuring out where the dividing line is on embryonic cells, since every time a human being has sex they kill more potential unborn babies, and every time a woman menstruates she is killing a potential baby. I can't figure that one out. Why draw the line at fertility? I know I don't have an answer. \n\nAnd where do you get millions of embryonic stem cells? That many don't exist. Since they are taken from in vitro fertilization with the permission of the donors, and would have been disposed of anyway as waste, how does this translate into killing innocent babies?\nhttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp\n\nBut, for adult stem cells there is absolutely no connection to this argument about abortion. I quote: \n\nA. Where are adult stem cells found and what do they normally do?\nAdult stem cells have been identified in many organs and tissues. One important point to understand about adult stem cells is that there are a very small number of stem cells in each tissue. Stem cells are thought to reside in a specific area of each tissue where they may remain quiescent (non-dividing) for many years until they are activated by disease or tissue injury. The adult tissues reported to contain stem cells include brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, skin and liver."\n\nWhere in adult stem cell research is the ethical or religious problem? I just don't see it. I'm not so sure that religion has taken over science, but am worried that ignorance has taken over government.\n\nFinally, why is this under EARTH SCIENCE and not BIOLOGY?
359710
It's not so much the acutal medical risks, but the ehtical and moral implications of conducting research in the field.\n\nThe following is an excerpt from a research paper I recently wrote concerning stem cell research:\n\nEmbryonic stem cell research raises immense ethical and religious concern:\nThe issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths- even many of the same faith- coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions. (“Bush Embryonic Stem Cell Decision” 1)\nQuite often, the status of an embryo is debated among scientists, politicians, theologians, philosophers, and even everyday people. There are many ideas circulating the globe as some vie to protect the embryo and others hope to use it to benefit society. Those that oppose stem cell research claim that the methods scientists use are not morally justifiable. Human embryos, in their minds, are “not mere biological tissues or clusters of cells; they are the tiniest of human beings” (Espejo 49). According to the Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics Commission, the embryo should be considered a living organism from its earliest stages (Espejo 46-50). People therefore claim that scientists are alienating the rights of living human beings by performing experiments on embryos: \nThe painful lessons of the past should have taught us that human beings must not be conscripted for research without their permission- no matter what the alleged justification- especially when that research means the forfeiture of their health or lives. Even if an individual’s death is believed to be otherwise imminent, we still do not have a license to engage in lethal experimentation- just as we may not experiment on death row prisoners or harvest their organs without their consent. (Espejo 49)\nThe widespread Christian view that life begins at the moment of conception has caused many to believe that the destruction of the human embryo is murder (Espejo 4). People also believe that is irrelevant whether the embryos are capable of implanting in a uterus and developing, as they are embryos nonetheless (Morris 2). As Morris questions, “are we willing to recognize life, even if it’s living in a Petri dish?” (2). Those that sympathize with these concerns feel that research requiring the destruction of a human embryo should be banned. Others argue that since IVF procedures often generate more embryos than needed, the excess embryos should be used for potentially life-saving research rather than being discarded (Espejo 36-37). Also, they claim embryos do not have the same rights as adult humans. The suggestion that a mass of 50-100 cells with no heart and no brain is entitled to the same protections is “unprecedented and not embodied in American law” (Espejo 38). With this in mind, it seems that embryonic stem cell research should not be undermined by the aforementioned arguments. There are additional concerns however. The use of SCNT is often criticized by those opposed to cloning, as a majority of people view cloning as morally wrong.  SCNT has been used in reproductive cloning, such as the cloning of Dolly the sheep. In the public’s mind, the distinction between this form of cloning and therapeutic cloning, which involves SCNT used for medical purposes, has blurred. The two should not be confused however, as they are completely separate procedures. Outlawing the use of SCNT would prevent the development of very promising techniques for curing disease
128352
It is not wrong and it is neccessary for humnas to move ahead and be able to combat the more debilitating diseases.\n\nI think some limits need to be in place and any research should be vetted by a committee for ethics, scientific rationale and soundness, but if it meets that criteria, then stem cells should be used to find new treatments for disease.\n\nWhat is sad is that many groups would like you to think that a baby has to die to obtain stem cells. This is far from the truth. There are many fetal sources for stem cells, and none are from aborted fetuses. Many of these sources are just incerated as medical waste because of current legislation promoted by those ignorant of basic biology. \nScientists should be free to do life saving research that will benefit all of humankind.
390978
If you're asking if embryos should be created then destroyed just for experimentation, then, no.\n\nBut if you're asking if stem cell research using existing embryos and non-embryonic stem cells should be used for good instead of just destroyed, I'd vote "yes".\n\nIf you're asking if stem cell research could some day lead to return of the eugenics movement (selective breeding, euthanasia of the handicapped--that sort of thing) my answer is that it's a chance I'm willing to take.