Which is a stronger pro-life position: preservation and significant improvement of life for millions of Americans suffering from spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders... or preservation of a few days old, laboratory-fertilized human egg? Why?
The Life is Not Yet Human Life
- Technically, these are collections of 100 cells or less. Unspecialized cells. If I kill an amoeba or even a fly, which is a far more advanced organism than a collection of 100 cells, no one would complain. But if I killed that collection of 100 cells, people would freak out. Guest Adam, I know that you must have killed a fly at one time or another. What makes that collection of 100 cells better or worth more than the life of that fly? The fly has way more cells and can already "think", or at least react to its environment.
- —Guest UltraGenius
- I believe in stem cell research. This is something new, and im looking into it because in my medical assisting class, we're talking about ethics and we've moved on to bioethics (dealing with the life of a person due to medical reasons). I am pro-life, but if a woman gets an abortion, that child is unwanted, so why "toss" it out like yesterday's garbage? Scientists still haven't figured out what manipulates cells to cause some of these diseases. This is just like being an organ donor. People know that there are other people looking for another kidney, liver, heart, eye whatever it may be. It's like saying, "I'm sorry we have the organ but we can't do it because to some it's offensive or just wrong." So if we have the means to understand stem cell research, why not go forth and use it and find cures? Ignorance has nothing to do with it. How would you feel if you contracted an incurable disease, would you not be interested in getting the problem fixed?
- —Guest BreeAnna
Embryonic Stem Cells (ESC)
- There are more sources ESC (it's a scientific classification) than embryos like amniotic fluid, umbilical chord blood, placental walls, and the recessed skin cell. There are two tests going on right now for treatments from embryonic stem cells. These kinds of cells were only discovered in 1998. Adult stem cells were discovered in the early 1900s and the very first treatment was bone marrow transplants between identical twins in the 50s and nonrelated people weren't until the late 70s. That's quite a time line. The ESC made from skin cells have a really high rate of tumor growth. Bottom line is the reason we don't have any FDA approved treatments from ESC is because we have only known about them for less than 15 years.
- —Guest Alex
- An embryo is a life. It just won't consciously know when its life is taken. Discounting strangers who have no connection to it whatsoever, it has no parents to mourn its passing, especially if it was never meant to continue its life. Although I am of no religion, I believe that there is some greater force, be it natural science or god, which controls what happens. We have a choice to fight it or accept it. Although I believe tinkering with the natural order of things is ... well, unnatural, science should be used to let people "go" in peace and security, rather than change the meaning of life itself. However, we are determined to do the latter action, so i see no problem with it... You might be ending the life of the embryo itself, but a part of it will live on... bettering the life of another.
- —Guest livingdollxox
Some Pertinent Info
- Scientifically speaking there are two categories of stem cells, embryonic and adult. Embryonic includes those derived from fetal/embryo tissue, amniotic fluid, placental tissue, and umbilical chord blood. The reasons all these sources are considered embryonic is because all these sources can branch into multiple kinds of cells. As you probably notice only one requires the destruction of a "life." The other line is adult stem cells which are the ones harvested from mature bodies such as bone marrow, skin cells, fat cells, etc. These are the cells that are FDA approved for various procedures because of the conservatives outcry against embryonic stem cells. Currently research into placental, and amniotic stem cell procedures have shown that these avenues are quite promising for creating nervous tissue treatments which no other research has been able to do successfully.
- —Guest Taoist
Think about it.....
- An embryo is not even technically a person. They have the potential to be one, but not unless put in someone's body. The embryos that are used are the leftovers sitting in fertility clinics that are going to be dumped in the trash anyway! Why waste them, instead of using them to preserve a human life, one that could still have many years filled with happiness left? I am a religious person, and believe that God loves all his creations equally, and will therefore be happy that some are being saved, while some that were never going to be people anyway were put to good use to stop suffering. The day-old embryos don't even have conscious thought, in any case.
- —Guest Logical
Embryonic stem cells
- Embryonic stem cells are living things. They aren't supposed to be destroy. They are supposed to able to live and grow like we do.
- —Guest scottygoodman15
I prefer effective treatments
- Embryonic stem cells have never cured anyone, but have caused tumors and infections. Adult stem cells have helped many. Why would you waste time pursuing a dangerous and ineffective treatment, when a perfectly good one already exists?
- —Guest Gigi
Pros and cons
- Before I knew much about it, I thought that it's killing a unborn baby. After reading this article, I've realized it's not killing but about unused cells that are typically useless, being combined with other cells to help regenerate good cells, to help diseased people that could die. The reason I say it's not killing is because it has no sperm therefore it's never been a zygote and was never conceived. I am a very religious person and don't believe this goes against any religious practices of mine.
- —Guest unbias
arguing for stem cell
- Those of you who said embryos are technically potential human.. They do NOT have the potential of living without a womb. They will die eventually without a womb unless YOU want to place them in your womb and give birth to them all 400,000 embryonic cells--> feel free :D
- —Guest logic
- Here's something to think about. Maybe NATURE, not religion or anything humans can do, is calling the shots on this. Humans can adapt, but maybe we weren't meant to stop death. I'm not a cold-blooded person--I've lost several loved ones to cancer and heart disease. But if humans never die, the planet will! Look at the horrible things we're doing right now to our world and yet people are dying every second. Imagine that times infinity! AHHH! So maybe we should let nature take its course and stop trying to screw with things we shouldn't mess around with. Everyone has to die somehow. Maybe you can ease the suffering of it, but nature must and will prevail.
- —Guest Duhhh
- My mother was 16 when she became pregnant with me.When her boyfriend decided not to take responsibility for fathering me, she felt alone, helpless, and hopeless. She decided to get an abortion.Then, my grandparents stepped in, ready to support their little girl in her big steps. They let the abortion be her decision, but insisted that she did not have to go through with it.Obviously, she did not and I am alive today. Did you know that all those living people that are "existing" presently were once embryos before they went through mitosis? Every single human being on this planet was an embryo. That embryo does AMAZINGLY hold life in it. Although it doesn't have a voice yet, if it could just speak to you..It doesn't want to die--it wants to live! Today, I am 17 years old with a life-threatening case of leukemia. Stem cell research could benefit me greatly. But I could never take the life of a future little girl or boy just to save mine-nothing about religion just values. The GOLDEN RULE!
- —Guest HopeFULLLLL
- Everyone against it is an over-Christianized, conservative bastard. "Religion is the opium of the masses" (Marx, Karl).
- —Guest fuck you
Embryonic stem cell research
- I'm doing a report for my English class in which i have to choose a controversial and current issue, choose a side, and defend it. I chose stem cell research and I believe it is alright to use embryonic stem cells to better mankind and possibly ease the suffering of thousands of people. I respect both sides of this debate, but some things that define a human being are self awareness and as well as speech cognition. The blastocyst is none of these things. Yes it is alive, unless it wouldn't be able to reproduce into more cells, but it is not, in my opinion a human being. It has the potential of becoming one, but it's not one yet. In fertilization clinics, hundreds of embryos are going to be thrown away and wasted. Why not donate them to science and help find a cure for diseases? True that no cures have been found yet, but the Roman Empire was not built in a day.
- —Guest Alexa
Science Vs. Higher Power?
- Embryonic Stem Cell Research is an advantage in Science and it should not be taken to the offense of religion. Maybe the higher power (who ever that is to you) is creating life. Maybe it is creating life to save others, I have family members who have died to save another because that was what they felt was their purpose. I believe that pro-life means preserving existing life, not a human egg, I do not believe that life starts at conception, I believe that life starts once you hear that first breathe or cry once out of the womb. Science is not about religion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research is worth it all in the long run to save lives and cure diseases.
- —Guest Co.Student.