Stem Cell research, further moral issues?

I understand that it is expected that G.W Bush intends to veto


the proposal on the funding on embryonic stem cell research.


He does this on moral and ethical grounds, although I see his point I vehemently disagree with the man.


But the world is a very big place and this research now taking place in many other countries will likely


lead to cures for debilitating diseases many Americans are suffering from.


What then ?, Isn't the next logical step to deny these people the


treatment for what will in effect be a curable disease, because it is considered to have been developed by unethical and immoral methods.


How fair would that be towards the patients and how bitter for them ?


Give me your considered views please, and keep it civilised.

Stem Cell research, further moral issues?
Answer: To effect their rise to power, socialist democrats have no morals...


In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.





The results show that insulin-dependent diabetics can be freed from reliance on needles by an injection of their own stem cells.


Note that ones own stem cells are the key!


Moral issues on embryonic systems are a liberal, socialist, genocidal fabrication.
Reply:G W Bush is due credit for standing his ground on this issue, I guess. The arguments for stem cell research and the amount of support from the public and scientific and medical fields are more logical and overwhelming then the president and as soon as he's finished his term we can move on with more research.





With the scenario you suggest, this will continue to be a hot button topic. The immediate issue is that there are some hundreds of thousands of embryonic stem cells flagged to be thrown away. It would be a shame if GW vetoes the new bill. Would he change his mind if someone close to him benefited directly from stem cell research?
Reply:I am currently doing a paper on stem cell research, and the underlying theme in all of it seems to be, "What defines being human?" In one of the books, it states that these cells, when they are examined and such, cannot even be called humans because they are only blastocysts. They make a point of mentioning that this blastocyst could technically split and form twins, therefore actually destroying the original blastocyst as one cell.





The second thing I noticed was that the veto also restricted research to stem cell lines that were formed in or before August of 2001, so new new lines can be used to experimentation and research.





And of course, who knows if these stem cells can really cure Pakinson's or diabetes of Alzheimer's? I would like to believe they can. A lot of people think even if they cannot cure diseases, at least these cells can be "coaxed" into forming, say, organs for transplants in people whose bodies would normally reject a transplant.





I think stem cell research is just the next step in modern health care, and I do not like appeals to emotional blackmail of President Bush when he used his first veto against federal funding of such endeavors, and then explained his decision in front of snowflake children. Oh, please! Besides, the majority of the public has the wrong idea about stem cell research anyway- it seems they think they are aborted fetuses or something. These cells are not sentient beings in ANY sense of the word.





My closing thought is probably going to earn me a few thumbs-down, but I don't care. I saw the most interesting bumper sticker a couple days ago: "Bush Family Values: Rights Begin At Conception And End At Birth."





Sadly, that's what they seem to be. These stem cells are not going to be used to impregnate women (which by the way, religious fanatics still don't like because they think artificial insemination undermines the act of copulation between a couple, but God forbid they have children biologically related to them, right?), they're just sitting on a laboratory shelf.
Reply:i am for stem cell research and i guess once the other country has a cure, Bush will scare then with threats of attack and make it our own.
Reply:I think stem cell research is ok as long as u dont "kill" a fetus that is growing a brain. basically i dont think u are killing someone until they are atleast developing a brain. So if it hasnt started developing a brain yet then u should be able to use it for cures.
Reply:The GOP'ers and the bible thumpers have convinced a good portion of the american public that stem-cell research involves sticking a bunch of recently aborted 3rd trimester fetuses into a grinder, and then letting nancy pelosi or somebody drink the result.





The amount of progress that could be made in treating and preventing dozens of life threatening diseases by simply allowing scientists to use stem cells (which have already been harvested) is incomprehendable. Standing in the way of that progress on the other hand, is unconscionable.
Reply:This is purely a political decision, ask yourself who would be hurt the most if cures for disease were found. Then look amongst the republican party's biggest contributors and you will find the pharmaceutical company's. Morals is just a side issue to these people to get support and votes from the right wing radicals. .
Reply:everyone who is against it will be for it if it is the only wey to save one of their loved ones even bush would be for it if it was the only way to save one of his daughters
Reply:He is keeping america from being able to compete in the fastest growing industry...healthcare. And no, americans won't be denied the benefits of this research, but we will be denied the prestige of finding those cures, our healthcare system will further be an embarrassment to the US, and we will be charged an arm and a leg for the treatments. I guess he feels that is moral and ethical. His daughters were conceived as a result of a fertility clinic, and given the facts about how fertilized eggs are handled in these places, especially 20 yers ago...let's just say that he has already acted against his morals on this one.
Reply:I want to know where is their disgust at the embryo's that are usually used for this research being thrown away every month. If this life is so sacred, why are they allowing these embryos to be thrown away and destroyed?
Reply:If he signs the bill, then the democrats cannot ***** about having deficit spending. As of right now, we SHOULD NOT take on anymore spending by the govt until we have extra money to spend.
Reply:Embryonic stem cell research is already going on here. It currently is very unstable as compared to the success's of adult stem cell research.





The main thing that you need to understand is that tax payer money is just not supporting it. That is the President's moral stand. Many people in this country are pro life. Why should our tax money be spent on something that is not deemed as showing signs of success especially when some of us value the life of an innocent as higher than someone's disease.





If Embyonic stem cell research is so valued as a having significant future success than why aren't some big financial backers tackling it because the knowledge could be worth billions?!





There are a lot of politics in this debate and often the word embryonic is not used when discussing the Presedent's anti stance for ONLY that type and it is just tax payer money. It is not illegal.
Reply:By the time any treatments are discovered, Bush will be out of office and it'll be a moot point. You'll probably have some die hards who boycott the medications because of ethics (the same way people boycott companies that test on animals), but I think the demand for the market place will still drive the issue.





BTW, what most people don't know is that there are many kinds of stem cells being researched and the most promising tests are coming from non-embryonic stem cells. So, who's going to ask "is this reserach embryonic or cerebral?"