The destruction of embryonic stem cells for research is morally wrong.

Total Voters: 554 Yes 68% No 68% Undecided 68% Gwen 06/21/08 4:57pm I have never understood this peculiar fixation with cells when actual living human organisms (including children) are dying due to lack of food, health care and care. My sense is that the concern does not stem from a respect for human life but, rather, a desire for control. Pat 06/19/08 3:56am Come on! We see how the vote is going to be on this. New poll, pleeeaaassseee!!! Diane 06/17/08 4:57am Next poll please. There are only two sides to this argument: theological, which you cannot prove, and bioethical, which is equally moot. Already we see the "God" argument which has been used for thousands of years to stop any kind of scientific achievement and it is only very slowly we can move past the "God" argument and progress. This isn't even worth discussing at this point as we have heard this same argument so much by the Bush administration the last eight years. Really tired of this particular subject, thanks. The argument basically runs like this: "we can't save lives because God doesn't want us to kill something that is already dead and unviable. Instead, God wants us to think only of ourselves and have ethics arguments that are moot." And Bush calls himself the education president. He is rather like the Catholic church when Galileo discovered the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth. The Church needed the earth to be the center of the universe or it meant that God did not think man more important than the earth and the sun. What egotism, really. Zahida Rehman 06/16/08 9:32am We have no right to destroy anything which God has created with love, as illness or health have their own message for a human being to realise himself that he is out of balance or not. To do research with embryonic stem cells is wrong, as to get these cells you are interfering in its natural growth, and if the purpose is clonning than it is like becoming God,try to use items from lower kingdoms of plants and animals but not destroying their spices. Pat 06/16/08 3:59am There is only so much that can be said on this topic, I think the few of us that said what we said are the only arguments for both sides. This is boring(that's just my thoughts). See you on the next poll. Ed 06/13/08 11:53am I believe our scientists have cures for many things like cancer, diabetes, etc, but they are not going to let the American people know because it would put Doctors and hospitals out of business. Plus the population would not go down. The Stem cell issue should not be an issue. If it helps save lives then do it. It's not a person or baby, just a bunch of cells. I also read that the placenta has done wonders with helping heal badly burnt victims by healing faster, but again the activists don't want to use it, because it's not moral. Again a bunch of cells that could do wonders for burn victims. There's one thing I do not agree on is cloning people or animals. Rich assholes will want to make the perfect kid or race horse etc. That is wrong, but if these cells help cure people then we should do it. Pat 06/13/08 11:09am On the moral issue, that's the reason I asked the questions about the beginnings of a baby or is that when the soul enters then or later. I know everyone has their opinions on that, but truthfully we can only guess. So instead of taking a chance that the soul enters then, I believe we should leave the embryo alone(that's just what I think). If scientists can get the same results(the stem cells) from the placenta and the amniotic fluid, why mess with the embryo, even though it is only a few days old. I know how very important stem cell research is, the further the research goes, more people will be healed from a multitude of things. But however it ends up, the scientists and parents have to answer to the Great Spirit, not us. So it is between them and the Great Spirit(there may not even be anything wrong on a spiritual level) or a moral level. I just wouldn't do it(if I were a scientist). Jeff 06/13/08 1:28am I just want to draw a distinction between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. There has been much research done in both. To date there have been no cures resulting from embryonic stem cells, but there have indeed been many advances resulting from adult stem cells. I believe there is definitely a moral issue when it comes to creating human embryos for the purpose of extracting their stem cells. Unlike adult stem cells, you cannot remove them from an embryo without killing it. While it is certainly possible that in the future we may derive cures for disease and other advances from such a process, I think it's wrong on so many levels. Human life is sacred, and even if you don't believe an egg once fertilized is yet considered "human", it is certainly the beginning stages of a unique person who unless you believe in re-incarnation will never again have a chance at life. A human life even in it's earliest stages should not be destroyed in the name of research. Human beings or human embryos are not rats to be dissected. Now, my understanding is that there have been countless embryonic stem cells extracted over the years unnecessarily because once extracted, they can be cloned over and over. We can't help the fact that past embryos have been created and then destroyed for this purpose, so I don't have any problem with cloning the embryonic stem cells that are already in existence for the purpose of research. By cloning a stem cell thousands or even millions of times, there are plenty available for the scientific community to sink their teeth into it and plug away at cures. Why go down that slippery slope of creating and destroying human life. It reminds me of those days when lotions were made from aborted human fetuses or back during WWII when products were made from human remains back in the Hitler concentration camps. I don't care how much good can come out of such a grotesque human desecration it's just wrong. Char 06/12/08 4:24pm I was dignosed with stage 4 NHL Lymphoma Char 06/12/08 4:16pm I have cancer. Or should I say I'am in remission as of now.I was the recepent of a new medical procedure called stem cell transplant. I can only say for my self Iam in remission and doing well. I only hope that this procedure can help others with cancer. Pat 06/11/08 4:17am I'm pro-choice also and I've never really thought either way on this topic. I've always considered all the people that can get cures from this research, also. But if scientists can get what they need from the placenta and now I read this morning that they can get what they need from the amniotic fluid, I really don't see what the problem is. It seems to me that it would satisfy the pro-life and the pro-choice people.I also read that the people that give up these extra embryos, which is their right, it is their bodies to do what they want. It is their choice. I still see both sides of this topic though. I agree with what the both of you say. Like I asked those two questions in my first comment, I'm really curious about the tiniest things in life as well as the largest things in life. Both comments, Pookie and Bam Bam, are excellent. Bam Bam 06/10/08 8:30pm Wow, this is a tough one for me being pro choice. But, I don't think cells in a petrie dish are a baby yet. They are the begininng of what is to become a baby. They are the road map so to speak. We must determine at what point is it unethical to terminate those cells? When I say cells, I mean just that "cells" that are still dividing and doing a job that leads to the growth of an actual human form. If they can get stem cells from the placenta than perhaps that would be better. Then we're not messing with anyone's destiny. Let's face it one of those petrie dishes might contain the next person who will cure cancer. Pookie 06/10/08 11:18am Embryos in a petrie dish cannot grow to a full human being and they are probably *NOT* feeling pain - their nerve systems are not developed at that point yet. People have to decide which is more important... humans who are alive and independent of the womb or an amoebic mass of dividing cells that cannot live autonomously outside the womb. Which really takes precedence? The health of the 'born' and the future of medical care for all mankind as learned from these experiments - or whether a mass of cells has stopped dividing. I don't think the decision is that hard. Pat 06/10/08 10:08am This is a tough one(for me). An embryo is the tiniest beginning of a baby. Stem cells that come from an embryo are only a few days old. Even though it is the beginning, does that really mean killing a baby or not? It is only a few cells, is that the beginning of a soul or not? I researched just a tiny bit before putting my comment in and found that scientists can get stem cells from the placenta(after birth). If that's the case, then they don't need to get it from embryos. That seems like a very logical answer to me.