Should stem cell research be banned?

[Grid]

There has been much debate on whether or not stem cell research should be made permanently illegal. In other words, stem cell research would never exist in America. I believe it shouldn't be, because it opens the door for research, including research towards finding a cure for several diseases. In fact, I read an article the other day in which a man was cured of some disease thanks to stem cell research, I don't have a link to the article though. What are your thoughts on stem cell research?

[Jess]

it shouldn't be banned if it helps with research for a cure for something

[Fiction]

Stem cell research could potentially save and improve so many lives. Who are the government to take away this possibility?

[KylieEatWorld]

I don't think so. There are methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells with that would have fewer ethical objections. It's just a matter of money. Which if you can risk live human embryos for the further advancement of science than a few bucks wouldn't matter. But banning stem cell research as a whole would be an un-wise decision especially considering the potential that field of study holds.

Source On Alternative Methods (http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem14.htm)

[Korashk]

Recently, a man was cured of HIV because of a stem cell transplant. It wasn't just because of the transplant (the donor is genetically immune and that got transfered), but those qualities were passed via the stem cells.

[Jamie]

No. I also find it ridiculous that it's mainly being kept so harshly viewed due to some of the more outspoken right-wing nuttists.

[skinny_white_boy]

Why should they ban something that helps save others? I think it's a great idea to move forward with the research and see what cures we can get out of it.

[Amnesiac]

Anyone against stem cell research is social conservative scum and is, therefore, a massive idiot. This is the type of research that can save people from grave diseases. Anyone who honestly believes that stem cell research should be banned is an enemy of human progress and exists only to kill people so another baby can be born.

[Jenna.]

Definitely not. It can be helpful in so many ways. Anyone who thinks this is "wrong" clearly has never sat down and looked up all the benefits it could bring us.

[Kiko]

I think that in this case it's necessary to sacrifice a few to save many.

[Korashk]

I think that in this case it's necessary to sacrifice a few to save many.
What are you talking about? Stem cell research does not require "sacrifice."

[Kiko]

What are you talking about? Stem cell research does not require "sacrifice."

Well I'm guessing that if it was banned it would be on the moral grounds that you are "killing" blastocyst-stage embryos for medical research. So if I were to argue with someone who believed that it was morally wrong I would say that sacrificing a few embryos could save many humans in the future.

[Korashk]

Well I'm guessing that if it was banned it would be on the moral grounds that you are "killing" blastocyst-stage embryos for medical research. So if I were to argue with someone who believed that it was morally wrong I would say that sacrificing a few embryos could save many humans in the future.
Two things: Embryotic stem cell research is only one kind, and unused IVF embryos are periodically destroyed because nobody wants them.

[Fact]

As long as it's not harming anyone, then I don't see why it should be banned.

[trooneh]

Anyone against stem cell research is social conservative scum and is, therefore, a massive idiot. This is the type of research that can save people from grave diseases. Anyone who honestly believes that stem cell research should be banned is an enemy of human progress and exists only to kill people so another baby can be born.


Thank you. I agree completely. I couldn't say it better myself.

[Dunce]

If abortion remains illegal, then so should stem cell research. Seeing as both are "taking human lives", so I see where people who are against it are coming from. But it would do an awful lot of good for medicine and such. So, it shouldnt be banned.

[Sage]

I don't really have an opinion

Then stay out of debates. There are many ways we can obtain stem cells without going to aborted fetuses.

[Dunce]

Then stay out of debates.

Pffft, sorry my lord. :P

[Sith Lord 13]

Recently, a man was cured of HIV because of a stem cell transplant. It wasn't just because of the transplant (the donor is genetically immune and that got transfered), but those qualities were passed via the stem cells.

Yes, adult stem cells. (I'm making this clarification since most don't realize there is such a thing.)

Anyone against stem cell research is social conservative scum and is, therefore, a massive idiot. This is the type of research that can save people from grave diseases. Anyone who honestly believes that stem cell research should be banned is an enemy of human progress and exists only to kill people so another baby can be born.

I'm sorry the fact that I feel that it's morally dubious to kill an innocent human being just to help another make me a massive idiot.

Two things: Embryotic stem cell research is only one kind, and unused IVF embryos are periodically destroyed because nobody wants them.

And many feel that doing that is tantamount to abortion, which is tantamount to murder.



A) This debate needs to be focused. I think we can all agree it's clear from the OP's post that he means embryonic stem cells, not adult ones.

B) There is a method through which embryonic stem cells can be obtained with out danger to the embryo. I am all in favor of that research. If a frozen embryo is damaged or a miscarriage occurs, using that for experimentation is fine too, but I feel killing one human to save another is unethical. While I cannot say with certainty with certainty where life begins, I believe it is before birth (yes, I disagree with the supreme court) and if one cannot draw a line, the severity of the stakes mandates an abundance of caution airing on the side of not killing.

[Continuum]

As long as it's not harming anyone, then I don't see why it should be banned.

It does not. Although they extract it from a premature human being, I still consider it not a human. I mean, it's just a ball sac of aggregated cells. The Church looks upon it as Abortion, just as they branded the condom as an enemy of human life. But other preferred sources are excluded from this sanction. :rolleyes:

[Sith Lord 13]

Although they extract it from a premature human being, I still consider it not a human.

This is scientifically wrong. You can argue it's not alive, but you can't argue that it's not human.

[Continuum]

This is scientifically wrong. You can argue it's not alive, but you can't argue that it's not human.

Not yet, I mean. It needs to develop before it becomes a full fledged human.

[Daniel_]

I don't see why it should be. If it can help advance modern medical technology, why not?

Are there any major downsides?

[Trevoooor]

Stem cell research could potentially save and improve so many lives. Who are the government to take away this possibility?

This.

If anything, I believe stem cell research should be expanded.

[Death]

If abortion remains illegal, then so should stem cell research. Seeing as both are "taking human lives", so I see where people who are against it are coming from. But it would do an awful lot of good for medicine and such. So, it shouldnt be banned.

Stem cells aren't even real (or complete) humans (as in they are not sentient). The fact that they are just one to a few cells does help with that. If you would rather have thousands die by your hands (which would be killing billions of cells) just because you didn't want to use a vastly smaller amount of cells which won't hurt anyone, then you would be degenerative to life in general. Coming to think of it, isn't that what George Bush wanted?

[Wicked_Syn]

Lives could and are saved from stem cell research, so I do, highly, think that it should be LEGAL.

[Sith Lord 13]

Not yet, I mean. It needs to develop before it becomes a full fledged human.

Stem cells aren't even real (or complete) humans (as in they are not sentient).

Again, you can argue they aren't alive yet, but they are still humans. To say complete is a difficult term because at no point is a human "complete" It's still a human embryo. It's human, even if it's not alive.

[Death]

Again, you can argue they aren't alive yet, but they are still humans. To say complete is a difficult term because at no point is a human "complete" It's still a human embryo. It's human, even if it's not alive.

Okay so maybe it is technically and theoretically a humanl. But does that make using it to save millions wrong? Especially given that the amounts of cells saves compared to those used is phenomenal?

[Sith Lord 13]

Okay so maybe it is technically and theoretically a humanl. But does that make using it to save millions wrong? Especially given that the amounts of cells saves compared to those used is phenomenal?

I think that A) Since adult stem cells have already cured people, more funding should be allocated to that which does work, not that which might work. B) Saying a human who has not died is not alive is dangerous. Where do you draw the line? What's to prevent the line from being moved? C) Since we can do work with embryonic stem cells which does not destroy the embryo, I feel that is the standard that should be used.