Poll: Stem Cell Research Your opinions, please?

[MrCheap 0]

I think that stem cell research will be very helpful in curing disease and furthering the resistance and strengths of the human body.

[illini319 0]

While I think stem cell research should be publicly funded, I don't exactly think that stem cell research is the promise that many proponents seem to attach to this field. Yes, there is theoretically lots of potential for being able to manipulate the lineage of cells into any cell/tissue type one would require. But this is a large assumption: that we can successfully manipulate stem cells to adequately and permanently change them into the cell type we require. stem cells are, by virtue, a cell type that is completely self-renewing and doesn't stop dividing. How is this different from a cancerous cell? The differences are fundamentally slight. In fact many cancerous cells take on a stem-cell like fate. So... in conclusion I think that funding stem cell research is as necessary as funding cancer/cardiovascular/age-related research endeavors; the payoffs will be incremental

[d33p 0]

i voted for. Although i dont know much abt it , but anything which help mankind should be supported.and i thick this is in favour of humanbeing.

[Spell 0]

I voted for. Mainly because there's really no reason to say no. I mean, if we keep researching stem cells and find ways to improve them, we can find cures to most deadly of diseases, and also hopefully the cure to diseases that leave you disabled permanently. So, stem cells seem to bring hope to people who are seriously sick/or have an un-cureable disease.

Edited April 14, 2006 by Spell (see edit history)

[Vue 0]

I voted for stem cell research. It's a touchy subject, especially with the Church groups against it. But I would think it has more pros than cons.

[beatgammit 0]

I voted against.

 

First off, don't crucify (sorry for the imagery) me for my beliefs. I am very religious and I believe that every fetus has a spirit and, thus, each fetus is a person. If we have to sacrifice potential people to save the existing ones, this is morally reprehensible to me. I was watching House the other night, and a mother had the choice of sacrificing her unborn fetus (around 20 weeks old or so) to save her life or dying with the fetus (having a VERY slim chance of saving the fetus). The mother chose the latter, even though she had nearly no chance to live.

 

Also, what diseases could stem-cells potentially cure?? If it could cure AIDS, what are we doing? We are permitting premarital sex and sodomy, both of which are morally reprehensible to me. Sure, there are innocent people with AIDS that we could save, but at what risk?? Should we risk the morals that found our society for a few children that have been dealt a nasty hand in life?? What about Darwinism, the strongest surviving?

 

This may sound harsh, but it is meant to be an exaggeration. I believe that we should attempt to find cures to AIDS and cancer, but not through taking the lives of unborn children. If we cure AIDS and cancer, there will just be another big problem that will hit us. Will we turn to murder if we find that will help??

[trinifawk 0]

Any type of research that can benefit the human race is, in my opinion, a good thing. I guess it really depends on your perspective. If you take anything and use it for a bad purpose, then it's going to be hard to make people believe that it's worth having around. But there are many positives associated with stem cell research, as well as some negatives. When I think about it and weigh both of them out, I will be all for it. However, the authorities have to keep a close eye and regulate what's going on.

[MediYama 0]

Whatever is best to repair a human body. I don't know enough to say how the stem cells join a human spine, how it makes a human body better / worse, so I vote for the 3rd option.

[foolakadugie 0]

I voted against.

 

First off, don't crucify (sorry for the imagery) me for my beliefs. I am very religious and I believe that every fetus has a spirit and, thus, each fetus is a person. If we have to sacrifice potential people to save the existing ones, this is morally reprehensible to me. I was watching House the other night, and a mother had the choice of sacrificing her unborn fetus (around 20 weeks old or so) to save her life or dying with the fetus (having a VERY slim chance of saving the fetus). The mother chose the latter, even though she had nearly no chance to live.

 

Also, what diseases could stem-cells potentially cure?? If it could cure AIDS, what are we doing? We are permitting premarital sex and sodomy, both of which are morally reprehensible to me. Sure, there are innocent people with AIDS that we could save, but at what risk?? Should we risk the morals that found our society for a few children that have been dealt a nasty hand in life?? What about Darwinism, the strongest surviving?

 

This may sound harsh, but it is meant to be an exaggeration. I believe that we should attempt to find cures to AIDS and cancer, but not through taking the lives of unborn children. If we cure AIDS and cancer, there will just be another big problem that will hit us. Will we turn to murder if we find that will help??

There are many stem cells sitting sitting in jars waiting to be used, so we wouldn't necessarily need abortions to conduct the research.

We might as well use them for something. Also, embryos are not the only source of stem cells. If I were to take stem cells from my own

body and grow more from them in a lab then what harm would that be doing?

 

There are people with AIDS that did not get it from premarital sex/sodomy. Some people are born with it. I think that they deserve a

chance to live a normal life. Why single out AIDS, when there are plenty of other relevant diseases and problems?

 

There are many potential uses for stem cells, since they are able to become many forms of cells. They could be used to grow/repair organs,

since there is always a constant shortage for people on transplant lists. They could be helpful in repairing nerve damage to help people who

are paralyzed. They could help people with leukemia, other forms of cancer and infertility. These are off the top of my head, but I am sure

that there are others.

Edited June 20, 2007 by foolakadugie (see edit history)

[Unregistered 0111405241546 0]

I'm not sure.. You are saving hundreds of lives, but only if you take a life away. From what I know the cells are from a embryo which if obviously not a full grown baby yet, and in my view not a real person.

[jeremycollins 0]

I voted for because It could help millions of people. I do not know alot about stem cells, but I do believe it could help find cures for HIV and other deadly diseases. My personal opinion is that if you must take 1 to help 50, go for it. They should go forth with the stem cell research, to help change lives and make the world (what's left of it) a better place.

[patronus4000 0]

I'm for stem cell research. Stem cells could save so, so many lives in the future. It's a technology that will benefit us more than not. There was talk about using stem cells from embryos, how that's like destroying a life. But the thing is, stem cells don't only come from embryos, but from, well, I think the embilical cord, if I remember correctly from science class two years ago. So, there is no destruction of life.The other thing was the ethics of stem cell research. Are we tampering with nature? Well, yeah. But haven't we always done so? All the pollution we're doing, mining, spilling oil into the oceans. But I think that, as long as we tamper with nature safely - making sure that chemicals and such are not released into the environment, not cloning people or animals, because that's just tampering gone too far - it should be done.As long as it helps more than destroys, it's worth the effort, money, and time put into it.Serena