Embryonic stem cell research seems to require the destruction of the human embryo. However, recent theory suggests that embryonic stem cell lines can be generated using a sort of biopsy similar to that used in preimplantations that could allow stem cell creation without destroying the embryo.
Opponents of this research argue that embryonic stem cell technologies are a slippery slope to cloning humans which would fundamentally devalue human life. They argue that a human embryo is a human life and is therefore entitled to protection.
Contrarily, supporters of the research argue that resultant treatments of research could have significant medical potential. They maintain that excess embryos created for in vitro procedures could be donated with consent and used for the research.
My feelings about this have ranged from both sides at different points of my life, but mostly I still ride the fence.
On one hand I understand that life is life and I’m of the opinion that it begins at conception, which warrants protection of sorts.
On the other hand I understand when embryos are no longer wanted, they are thrown in the trash. How protected is that?
I’m coming to terms with myself about this after quite a few long arguments with myself. I think that if the “parents” of these embryos relinquish their claim (or even donate them to research) and the funding is from private sources, I’d be inclined toward supporting the studies. This is an incredibly hard resolution for me to come to because I liken it to a parent abandoning a child to someone who will destroy them. The more I write, the higher I climb back up to the top of the fence to sit.
At any rate, here’s Michael J. Fox on the issue:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
While you are sitting on that fence contemplating what side of it you'll eventually land on - Life is Life , Trash is Trash. More medical miracles equal More costs associated with health care. Do we really need people to live forever? Do we really need more people? The way things are shaping up in this world, I believe
less = more
The health care associated costs are what prompt me to only lean toward research of any type in a "privatized funding" setting only. I'll never support tax related exploration and study. I don't think it's a question of "people living forever" because that's never going to be an issue. However, quality of life while you're still here; *is*. I'm not thinking that any of this has to do with "more people", just maybe "less diseases" in the ones that are here. If it were a question of a population burst, I don't think we'd be hearing about the embryos hitting the trash. They'd all be "adopted", "bought", and in vitro'd.
I understand your line of thinking.
A thought about all of the terminally ill that are cured through the use of medical miracles struck me about 1 a.m. When we do this what affect does this have on the existing gene pool ? I mean if "only the strong survive" has worked for millenias , what happens when these *odd* genes proliferate? Isn't it a lot like hybridizing/genetically manipulating our food sources for better taste ,higher "nutritional" content & more quantity etc? I'm leaning and rebalancing myself...just seems to be way more "God" being performed by mere mortals than is right.
I think the idea is that the "odd genes" won't propagate. The reasoning is that science will find a way to either redirect - or stamp them out. I guess in the comparison to genetically altering food, I wouldn't say it's equal to boosting quality or quantity. I think it would be more like developing crops that are pest resistant. There again, toxins are toxins whether small or great. I suppose we won't know anything until research is conducted. I just don't think it should be conducted with taxes.
I'll have to agree with you(you seem to be correct in your line of thinking most of the time anyway). If the guv is going to do anything other than return "Our" stolen money, I'd prefer the funds to be spent *Wisely*
Post a Comment