One of the Presidential campaign discussions is the ability to use embryonic stem cells for research. These stem cells from embryos, kills the embryo. Some people argue they are killing life. On the other hand, these stem cells can form into any tissue of the body and may be used to allow tissue regeneration to treat many diseases. Harvard University is asking permission from the review board to produce cloned human embryos for research on diseases. The scientists know they are walking a thin line but they have said they would not attempt to clone a human.
I believe that Harvard should be allowed to uses those cells for disease research. It has the potential of treating many diseases; this alone should be a good reason. Also many countries have already started their research. In the micros, people would have the ability to be treated for diseases; therefore, live a longer and healthier life.
3 comments:
Being somewhat of a moderate myself, I would have to agree with what Bryce said about letting "Harvard" begin stem cell research. It is sad to see people like Mohammad Ali, Michael J. Fox, and the late Christopher Reeves suffer. These people are suffering from real diseases and any effort that we can make, as a progressive and informed society, should be done. President Bush, or rather his constituents, is against stem cell research and if he is reelected we probably won't see this new technology receive much governmental funding over the next four years. This is not to say that I think Kerry would make a better President, because frankly I don't.
I agree that stem cell research should be allowed to be pursued. The problem I see for government (annoying, but real)is that if science is allowed to produce embryos that are going to be destroyed, then where is the line drawn on abortion. I think that that is one of the big reasons that stem cell research has been thus far abated, ultra-conservatives aren't willing to give the pro-choice lobby ammunition to argue for completely unregulated abortions.
I have no idea where I even stand on this issue. I've been mulling this one since it first hit the news, and I still don't have a clue.
For now, I think I'm going to say the voluntary exchanges between individuals should generally be legal and out in the open, even if some people don't think they are ethical or moral. But, that doesn't begin to address whether the government should fund this research or not ... and that's where the big money comes from.
Post a Comment