Imagine a future in which devastating diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and rheumatoid arthritis have been all but eradicated. In recent years, scientists have discovered that stem cells may hold the key to the cures for these diseases as well as over seventy others. However, scientists have been denied the resources they need to fully realize the promise of stem cells by the government. Time and time again, the current administration has vetoed bills that would allow for stem cell research funding, even though the majority of the proposed bills would not apply to stem cells derived from embryos created for the specific purpose of scientific research.
What many people fail to realize is that there are many different types of stem cells that do not come from an abandoned embryo. There are adult stem cells, which come from the bone marrow of either the patient or the donor; umbilical cord stem cells, which originate in the umbilical cord of babies; and skin stem cells, which can be altered to take on the characteristics of embryonic stem cells. In all three instances, an embryo is not used to attain these cells. But yet the government still fails to provide enough funding to allow scientists to transition to using these stem cells in place of embryonic cells.
In order for that transition to take place, scientists must first understand what causes embryonic stem cells to change into the specific specialized cells used to cure diseases, according to Dr. James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin. But the government refuses to allow the funding of this research because according to them it destroys a human life. But does that logic really work? Let's look at the mortality rates of diseases that could be cured if scientists were given the resources they need.
Cystic Fibrosis is a genetic disorder that could be treated with stem cell therapy. It affects more than 70,000 children and adults worldwide, who on average may live to age 40, only half the lifespan of a healthy person. Another disorder, Muscular Dystrophy, affects one in every 2,400 boys who will be lucky to live to see their coming of age at 18. This disease could also be treated with stem cells. These are just two of over seventy diseases that have the potential to be cured or treated with stem cells. Look at those mortality rates alone; already more people with friends, family, and a life, are being allowed to die because the government will not allow scientists to do their job and save them.
Yes, this research may come from aborted fetuses. And while I do not think that abortion is morally right, that doesn't change the fact that a huge majority of those fetuses would have been aborted whether or not they were going to be used for stem cell research. By allowing them to be used for research, those aborted fetuses are helping save millions of lives. So why are we allowing our friends and family to suffer and die when a cure exists if only the government would give it a chance?
--Lucky Charms
11 comments:
So...you're saying that scientists need to do research on already aborted embryos, in order for scientists to develope the technology to save people without using more aborted embryos?
That makes perfect sense to me.
What good does it do anyone not to utilize these embryos? It's not like they are being aborted solely for the purpose of saving other people--just like organ donors aren't killed for their organs.
You somewhat contradicted yourself in your post. You said that stem cells from adults (that don't require death) can be used, yet you also say that embryonic stem cells should be used. Completely ignoring the moral element of this debate, every major stem-cell advancement has come from non-embryonic stem cells! Why spend money on morally questionable research when perfectly ethical means are more effective anyway?
I agree with you Jesus fish. Since these are already aborted embryos why not use them to help save others lives. Or make a step in researching. There is no harm in this. Mothers should not abort their babies though just to donate the embryo. Embryos are also not the only way for stem cell research. This research can help cure many diseases that you might get one day.
I think it is kind of messed up that our government says abortion is legal, but using aborted embryotic stem cells is "destroying a human life."
I agree with you. Now I am 100% against abortion, but if the fetus has already been aborted it might as well be used to save some lives.
Also, when a woman miscarries the fetus can sometimes be used for stem cells. It may not always be viable, but if so that baby unfortunately died due to mother nature not abortion.
I think that research on embryos, already aborted or not, is a poor decision. Humans, whether fully developed or not, are not lab rats. It's not as if they chose to be doners to the cause... they didn't even get to choose whether or not they wanted to exercise their "unalienable rights!" Why not continue research on non embryonic stem cells, where no controversy lies?
Oi lovableloser...
They didn't contradict themself. Stem cells taken from adults, such as those found in bone marrow, can only specialize to be a very few different types of cells. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, can specialize to become almost any type of cell in the body. When you have hundreds of different specialized cells, there are some things that would be just impossible to accomplish with stem cells from adults.
no contradiction : )
I am pro choice, i think that if the mother chooses to abort the fetus than scientists should be able to use it. Its not a matter of abusing a life if there is no life to abuse. The fetus is already dead, we should use it to the best of our ability to do research in order to save millions of lives.
Stem Cell research just seems logical to me. Think about it. The aborted embryos are ALREADY aborted, and the information gain from that research can save hundreds, no, thousands of lives.
And on the idea that it is morally wrong, well if they use adult stem cells, whats so morally wrong about that? We already donate organs and blood to save others, why not donate cells?
I agree with jesus fish. If we have this chance at saving thousands by using aborted fetuses (that would have been aborted whether or not they were to be used for stem cell research) then why not use them?
The only way i would be against stem cell research, is if mothers were aborting for the sole purpose of stem cell research. Seeings how this is not the reason behind abortions, then why not try to find a way to save thousands?
I agree with jesus fish. These embryos are aborted and being pretty much thrown away. Why not utilize those so that we CAN save a life. I also do not think abortion is morally correct, but I can't change the fact that abortion does happen. And because it is, lets use those stem cells. Killing babies for stem cell harvest CERTAINLY is not the case here.
I agree with the usage of already aborted fetuses to conduct research. I don't understand however, why people think researching on a dead fetus is wrong when cadavers of human bodies are used for the sole purpose of scientific experimentation and practice. Autopsies are used when the cause of death of a body is unknown, is this morally wrong?
Yes it's a baby, but fetus refers to an underdeveloped human, without a brain or nervous system to feel pain. So it's okay to practice research on an adult that has lived a life and has history, but it's not okay to research on something that isn't even considered a baby yet???
Post a Comment