stem cell research

So - where does everyone stand? I would assume since we're a more science-minded group, most would be for allowing embryonic stem cell research. BUT - some here are rather religious, too.

I cannot understand why people are opposed to using embryonic stem cells that [/i]are going to be discarded anyway[i]. If they're going to be discarded - literally destroyed - wouldn't it be preferable for something positive to come from their existence?

[MissCrabette]

I'm all for it BUT (yeah, feel free to stone me for saying this) I don't think the US government should be funding it at this point since we're in such deep financial doodoo. As long as it's funded by private money, sure, what a great idea. But I can think of many things to do with my tax money before spending it on stem cell research.

[SuzySunshine]

We are for it as long as they are embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway - my thought process is that if some IVF families can donate their embryos to other couples that can't create their own - I should be able to donate MINE to science.

I'm sure some argument is that extra embryos should never be created, while that would be a perfect world in IVF its not realistic in most cases.

[pstone]

I am in favor without hesitation and as far as funding, we fund everything. Lets switch some funding from other places at least, lord knows we fund the most silly things.

I read something like 400 thousand embryos are waiting to be destroyed, please.

[rainbabies]

for it. totally

[Meenah]

I'm for it and for funding it.

I am 100% for federal funding of stem cell research.

But I can think of many things to do with my tax money before spending it on stem cell research.

Maybe this mother's journal can convince you otherwise: http://caringbridge.com/mn/drewolson/

A friend of mine introduced me to this family's story....my friend's daughter was in the hospital battling a seizure disorder and while in the hospital, she met the Olson family. The Olsons lost two children to a horrible fatal genetic disorder called Alpers. Their son, Drew, died just before his 2nd birthday. Their daughter, McKenna, was diagnosed with the same disease within days of his death...she was about 5 months old at the time. She died this past July at 15 months. These parents, knowing that there is no cure for Alpers, had to sit back and watch their children die.....it was the most horrific thing any parent can go through.

Just think of the possibilities....the children who can possibly be saved from the same horrible disease, or even cancer, if only the government would support stem cell research. Shannon has repeatedly spoken about stem cell research on her blog.....and like she says, "Gold down the toilet."

[SuzySunshine]

One of the reasons embryonic cells haven't cured anything is because the research is SO restricted at this point. There aren't enough lines available to do hard core research with them.

I will agree that adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells are doing great things, and that is great! If embryonic stem cells were as unrestricted they would be making strides as well.

Maybe I'm more strongly behind this because of what my DH does. He watches so many people struggle and/or die with neurological diseases that should at least be given the chance to study what embryonic stem cells could do for them.

I think this is why I struggle so much with the abortion debate. Because we may have to go to IVF and we may create more embryos then we need - but again they're MY embryos and if my friend can donate hers to a couple that can't have children why can't I donate MINE to science? I suppose that is the same argument pro-choice people use about their bodies so I can see where the grey issue comes in.

We make decisions to (statistically) kill every day. When we get in the car, particularly some of the larger cars that are known for creating a higher risk of fatalities to other drivers. When we eat food that has pesticides on it that poisoned some farm worker somewhere. Modern life would grind to a halt if we only pursued activities that were 100% guaranteed not to harm anyone.

Embryonic research, and abortion for that matter, are just more direct and evocative examples. I think life is hard, killing is part of it, and embryonic stem cells are WAY down on my list of concerns. In fact, I think NOT FUNDING stem cell research has greater moral reprehensibility because it "kills" far many more people in the less of the many lives that could be potentially saved from discarded embryos. It may be that these sins of "omission" or opportunity costs feel less wrong to us, but sick is sick and dead is dead.

There are two different issues at hand here. I am fine with adult stem cell research but not embryonic stem cell research. The following article best explains my point of view.

But I guess my question is, why is it okay to destroy or discard those embryos rather than do research on them? There is no way they'll all be implanted and then have a chance to grow into human beings.

[Vanquisher]

It is unrealistic to say that all unused embryos cannot be discarded. What would we do with all the extras? Realistically, there is not a way to ensure that there will not be extra embryos created, so there will be excess. These excess embryos can not all become babies. They, further, cannot all be preserved indefinitely. That's just not possible. A couple should have every right to donate their unused embryos to science.

Embryonic stem cell research should be funded agressively.

I too think it is more morally reprehensible to not fund this research as the mere potential is too great. Even if no disease cures ever come of it, we will learn things that could cure diseases. It is ethically, morally, and financially the right thing to do. Anyone know how much diabetes costs our government?

[SuzySunshine]

Tara, its not an entirely different discussion. Why should they be stored for an unknown period of time, possibly forever?

Why should women who want to donate their embryos not be allowed to?

I understand the school of thought that life begins at conception - I totally agree with it. But these embryos are doomed (for lack of a better word) to a life in a test tube in a lab if their "parents" don't want them. Shouldn't they be at least given a reason for existence?

I also don't want all of you to think that my infertility issues are clouding my argument - DH and I have agreed on this for many years, long before we knew we may be IVF candidates. As we watched his grandfather die of Parkinsons, and we now watch his grandmother and my grandfather battles with Alzheimers, we realize there is SO much unknown about the brain and nerves and maybe stem cells aren't the answer but until more research is done on them we'll never know.

[SuzySunshine]

No - those are valid points Annie - my question is will they ever become living, breathing, walking people? Will they ever have children, grandchildren, etc?

If people want to implant their embryos and have more children - great! If they want to donate those embryos to other couples that can't have children - great! But if they want to donate those embryos to science, why can't they? Or if they're going to destroy them, why can't they be given the choice of donating them to science?

[pstone]

Everyone here knows that it is black or white right? I know this is debate forum but am I the only one that thinks it can't be debated?

[Stella]

Surprisingly, I don't really have an opinion on this. But you have all offered great points and I think I agree with everyone which also means I agree with noone. So, I don't know.

(anticlimactic and competely worthless post, I know.)