Embryonic Stem-Cell Research...Let's Talk!
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
September 1, 2007 10:36pm CST
Let's have an honest and frank discussion about embryonic stem cell research. I read the other day that scientists have created new heart muscles in laboratory rats using embryonic stem cells. The implications that would have for humans is astounding! How many lives could be saved and how many would have the quality of their lives improved immensely can't even be guessed at but it would be an enormous number. So, those of you who are against this, would you please explain to me WHY. I totally respect your opinion, I'm very aware that some people are absolutely anti-choice and they're very sincere in that belief and while I disagree under some circumstances I respect and understand that view. But, stem cell research is a whole different issue in my view.
A high school friend died a few days ago from ALS, aka Lou Gehrig's Disease at the age of 57; I understand he had a horrible death and an equally horrible last few years. That's just one more disease or condition that just MAY be able to be treated or even cured by embryonic stem cells. Others are diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, and MS. The embryonic stem cells, so I understand, show more promise because they're so "new" or "young"- whatever term you choose to use- so they'll adapt to any organ for most any purpose. I've never heard or read of anyone against this research come out against invitro-fertilization; does that mean you have no problem with these embryoes simply being destroyed instead of perhaps being used to save lives one day...maybe even YOURS or one of your loved ones?
I said I'd like to discuss this and that's just what I meant. I'm not a doctor or a scientist so it could well be there's something I'm missing here. I'm just very confused by the pro-life crowd being against something that's really about as "Pro" life as you can get. Please comment!
Annie
1 person likes this
2 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
5 Sep 07
From everything I have read is that all discoveries are made with Adult Stem Cells and not from Embronatic Stem cells. The research dollars are flowing into research using Adult Stem Cells because that is the area where they are getting results. The people who want to do embronic Stem Cell research need the new federal money because no one is investing in their research. President Bush allows for embronic Stem Cell research using the existing lines of Embronic Stem Cells. Federal money can not be used for new lines.
When Michael J. Fox was out campainging for Democratics and endorcing expanded Embronic Stem Cell Research, his foundation had just given over a Million Dollars to a group looking into Adult Stem Cells Project that showed progress in and hope for Parkinson.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
10 Sep 07
There is no proof that embronic stem cells will be of any value to medical science where there is proof that Adult Stem cells do produce results. I would referr to ypu to the following Fox news report http://www.foxnews.com/st...
Your comment about Rush was out of line. It was later admitted by Michael J Fox that he sometimes over medicates or does not take his medication when he is makeing a public appreance in support of embronic stem cell research. Also in one case he supported a congress man who was a democratic who voted against embronic stem cell research and the republican voted against the president to over ride the veto. Rush was critized for mocking the movements of Fox when he was trying to show to his radio and online audiance what Fox looked like. He was not trying to mock him as the reporters tried to make it out to be.
I do not like to see my tax money used by researchers to keep a job when the research shows no signs of being successful ot helpful. Any why do we need to develop more embronic stem cells when the strains we have are not being use, which are supported by federal funds. Presidnt Bush only stopped the funding to develop new strains of the embronic stem cells.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Sep 07
The article I just read did specifically say embryonic stem cells and I personally think research should be done on both types and that federal money should be available for both. Like I said, to me this isn't related to the abortion issue, the embryos already exist and hundreds of thousands of them are simply discarded. If I've been misinformed about this I'd like to hear about it, but that's what I've heard and read many times. I can't fault Michael J. Fox for speaking out on this issue before the last election. I don't think there's another human being besides Rush Limbaugh who could see him and not feel SOMETHING! As for the donation his foundation made, apparently he didn't want to put all of his eggs in one basket. And, for everyone's information while I may be pro-choice in some situations I would never be in favor of, as I've heard some far-right pundits suggest, getting women pregnant just to abort the fetus for research. In my mind that would be unthinkable and outrageous! The comment from a few posts ago still has me bristling a bit; I'm certainly not against babies, my niece just had a baby boy yesterday after trying for quite some time and suffering a miscarriage last year and I coudn't be happer for her and I can't WAIT to see the baby! My daughter and my two grandkids are my greatest treasures. OK, I got it out of my system now!
Annie
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
4 Sep 07
Actually adult stem cell research has been more successful than embryonic stem cell research.
See this article: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html
Of course if you want to justify destroying pre-born life, without reading the above articles, go right ahead. However we reap what we sew and you will soon see the results of your preference when they ask women to donate their embryos for research because the other ones were destroyed in futile attempts to save someone from Diabetes, MS, aLzheimers, ETC. the reason they want to continue this research rather than use adult stem cells is justification for abortion. Adult stem cells are very successful, but no one hears about it and certainly the media would never publish anything that is against their pro abortion view. The pro-life believe in preserving pre-born life, not in destroying it for the benefit of older people. Diabetes runs in my family and I have a sister=in=law with a form of Lou Gehrig's disease, and as for invitro=fertilization instead of destroying the embyros, why not implant them in infertile woman, or are you against them getting pregnant because they were foolish enough to become sterile anyway?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Sep 07
OK, where'd that "they were foolish enough to become sterile anyway" come from? So, the pro-life believe in preserving the fetus but to heck with older people, is that what you're saying? I don't understand what this has to do with abortion, that's a topic for another discussion! The stem-cells that are being used are those that were from invitro-fertilization that would be discarded otherwise. Yes, I have heard there's been some success with adult stem-cells as well, and YES it's been in the evil media! If you're pro-life (as opposed to anti-choice or pro-fetus) I can't understand why you would want to leave any stone unturned to try to save lives. Perhaps you're sister-in-law is an older person who has lived too long for it to matter if she's saved or not...
Annie
