Posted by Sir Four at 11:35am Jun 2 '05Stem cell research has the possibility of leading to cures for various diseases, but because embryonic cells are used, many conservatives are strongly opposed to it.
What stem cell advocates would like to do is to use extra embryos from in-vitro fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded as waste for the purpose of research into finding these cures... cures for things like diabetes, parkinsons, alzheimers, spinal injury, various organ diseases, etc.
Stem cell oponents say that no embryonic cells should be used for research because doing so amounts to exploiting human life.
The thing is, stem cell research is continuing anyway. Much of the progress is being made overseas, particularly in Asia, where countries are seeing an opportunity to get ahead of the US. Private and state-sponsored research is also being conducted in the US currently, but without federal funding the progress is slower than it could be. My point is, stem cell research is inevitably progressing despite the objections of some conservatives, and may indeed lead to cures (although it will take longer due to the lack of US federal funding).
So let's say it's 10 years later and several cures for major diseases have been found as a result of stem cell research. Yes, this is hypothetical. Should conservatives have access to those cures, the very cures they tried to derail and prevent from happening? I'm curious, if you, dear reader, are one who opposes stem cell research, would you choose out of principle to not get treated for a disease if the cure was found through stem cell research? What about if your kid was the one who is sick? Would you want the cure then?
What stem cell advocates would like to do is to use extra embryos from in-vitro fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded as waste for the purpose of research into finding these cures... cures for things like diabetes, parkinsons, alzheimers, spinal injury, various organ diseases, etc.
Stem cell oponents say that no embryonic cells should be used for research because doing so amounts to exploiting human life.
The thing is, stem cell research is continuing anyway. Much of the progress is being made overseas, particularly in Asia, where countries are seeing an opportunity to get ahead of the US. Private and state-sponsored research is also being conducted in the US currently, but without federal funding the progress is slower than it could be. My point is, stem cell research is inevitably progressing despite the objections of some conservatives, and may indeed lead to cures (although it will take longer due to the lack of US federal funding).
So let's say it's 10 years later and several cures for major diseases have been found as a result of stem cell research. Yes, this is hypothetical. Should conservatives have access to those cures, the very cures they tried to derail and prevent from happening? I'm curious, if you, dear reader, are one who opposes stem cell research, would you choose out of principle to not get treated for a disease if the cure was found through stem cell research? What about if your kid was the one who is sick? Would you want the cure then?