If baffles my mind that stem cell research is an actual issue. Why the hell would anyone try and slow down scientific progress? It just seems to me like a weird religious issue as if the ability to clone someone would disprove the existence of god. I really have no problem with cloning as long as it's the decision of the individual being cloned. I then believe that the clone of that person should be treated as a separate individual with their own rights. People who have moral issues with cloning might as well have moral issues with any product of technology. I just think the idea of self generated men scare the hell out of people.

If baffles my mind that stem cell research is an actual issue. Why the hell would anyone try and slow down scientific progress? It just seems to me like a weird religious issue as if the ability to clone someone would disprove the existence of god. I really have no problem with cloning as long as it's the decision of the individual being cloned. I then believe that the clone of that person should be treated as a separate individual with their own rights.

People who have moral issues with cloning might as well have moral issues with any product of technology. I just think the idea of self generated men scare the hell out of people.

I totally agree with the poster. I myself am I diabetic and it angers me that these people want to stop research based on the idea that using otherwise disregarded cells to do research is "murder". If scientists can find a way to do the same research without embryos then by all means go ahead but as it stands the best shot for curing diseases like diabetes, alzheimers, etc is with the use of embryonic stem cells. The decision is this: do we let people die and suffer from diseases that could be cured with this research based on the belief that an embryo is alive but will most likely be thrown out anyway?

I totally agree with the poster. I myself am I diabetic and it angers me that these people want to stop research based on the idea that using otherwise disregarded cells to do research is "murder". If scientists can find a way to do the same research without embryos then by all means go ahead but as it stands the best shot for curing diseases like diabetes, alzheimers, etc is with the use of embryonic stem cells. The decision is this: do we let people die and suffer from diseases that could be cured with this research based on the belief that an embryo is alive but will most likely be thrown out anyway?

The eggs are donated, or about to be thrown away, so no problem there. The DNA of the mother is removed and DNA from the patient is injected, making a clone, so no fertilization really goes on. The cells are harvested mere days later, before any differentiation occurs, so there is no chance of suffering, since there isn't even a notochord, let alone a brain yet. Since the embryo is a clone, I think there would be more ethical issues if it was allowed to mature, compared to harvesting cells. Unless I am very inaccurate in my understanding of the process, I think the benefits of embryonic stem cell research, in terms of reduced suffering, outweigh the reasonable objections. On a side note, there has been a lot of progress in making pluripotent stem cells from the patient's own tissues, so the issue may become moot.

The eggs are donated, or about to be thrown away, so no problem there. The DNA of the mother is removed and DNA from the patient is injected, making a clone, so no fertilization really goes on. The cells are harvested mere days later, before any differentiation occurs, so there is no chance of suffering, since there isn't even a notochord, let alone a brain yet. Since the embryo is a clone, I think there would be more ethical issues if it was allowed to mature, compared to harvesting cells. Unless I am very inaccurate in my understanding of the process, I think the benefits of embryonic stem cell research, in terms of reduced suffering, outweigh the reasonable objections. On a side note, there has been a lot of progress in making pluripotent stem cells from the patient's own tissues, so the issue may become moot.

Michael (AttemptingReason), if that is indeed the scenario, then I support your opinion.

I do not know enough about stem cell research to give a definite yes or no on it, but for the most part, as long as we're not harvesting the unborn for it, then I don't see why we shouldn't research it.

Michael (AttemptingReason), if that is indeed the scenario, then I support your opinion.

I do not know enough about stem cell research to give a definite yes or no on it, but for the most part, as long as we're not harvesting the unborn for it, then I don't see why we shouldn't research it.

jdubb said " as long as we're not harvesting the unborn for it, then I don't see why we shouldn't research it." This is also where I stand. There is absolutly enough material available without entering this slippery slope

jdubb said " as long as we're not harvesting the unborn for it, then I don't see why we shouldn't research it." This is also where I stand. There is absolutly enough material available without entering this slippery slope