|
If stem cell research is able to help people in so many ways like cloning then why is it unethical
to use it. Religion gets in the way of every scientific breakthrough and it pisses me off. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Can I say that "I DON'T KNOW" ? And not be stoned in here for posting to a debate I do not have
enough information on to air an opinion on?......
At this present time, which what I do not know about this topic, I agree.
I think at this present time, that they should use stem cells.
But I may be wrong or incorrect. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It could save lives and extend human lifespan. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The godbots are lying when they claim "stem cell research is abortion!" Either they are too stupid
to do the research, or too dishonest to tell the truth. There is no third possibility.
Stem cells come from two sources:
1) Women voluntarily donate their eggs for research. If these women did not donate, their bodies
would dispose of the eggs naturally, and the egg would never become a human being. Such
women have no intention of becoming pregnant, and it is a lie to call this "abortion".
2) The women and couples who put their eggs into fertility clinics voluntarily turn over
those eggs for research. Since the eggs were not fertilized, and the women/couples have no
intention of having a pregnancy, no abortion is involved.
In all cases, all eggs are donated and none are taken forcibly. These eggs would
never become human beings, so using them for research is preventing waste. Yes, the eggs
must be fertilized with sperm to create stem cells, but since the fertilized eggs are never inserted
into a woman, they would never survive.
If the godbots are so against stem cell research from eggs, then they have no right to use any
of the future stem cell research which does not come from eggs. The latter would not exist
without the former.
But then, they are called hypochristians for good reason. |
| |
 K9  21 Jun 2008 05:27
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If it saves millions of lives then I'm all for it |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I do agree that stem cell research should not be banned, but I disagree with the way you think they
(stem cells) should be harvested. You can get stem cells from adults a hundred times easier than you
can from an embryo and it doesn't cost the life of a human being. You can take the umbilical cord
after a woman has given birth and you can harvest stem cells from it. Name just one incident where
embryonic stem cells have saved a life. Adult stem cells has a 100% cure rate to date compared to 0%
for embryonic stem cells as far as I know. You can correct me if I am wrong. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Since you phrased the description as you had...It is unethical to sacrifice existing life for
"potential new ones". Would you experiment on elderly Alzheimer patients to save the life of a new
born? By phrasing the description as you had, it is easy to say that it is unethical to do as you
say, and it is not clouded by any gray areas. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No matter how many lives it may save, there is no reason to kill babies to harvest stem cells. There
are better ways. |
| |
 Mark 10 May 2008 19:02
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
