The House just passed a bill lifting restrictions on stem-cell research. Bush said he would veto it if it passed thorugh the Senate. Supporters say stem-cell research has great promise in leading to cures for various and sundry diseases. Opponents say stem-cell reserach is immoral because it involves the "discarding" (i.e. murdering) of embryos after they're used, or something like that.
I don't know a lot about stem-cell research, and I'm not sure what baby embryos have to do with discovering cures for diessaes. Although I have heard that stem-cells taken from livng adults are just as, if not more, effective than stem-cells taken from embryos. I do know that destroying life at any stage, even an embyonic stage, is murder, and if stem-cell research involves murder, then it's wrong.
I don't care if the end purpose is to save life. You're destroying life in the process---the opposite of what you say is the purpose. What if they discovered that blood sucked from one-year-olds is effective as a cure from cancer? Would people be supporing that? You bet not! Why? Because it's obvious that life is being destroyed in the process. Even though it's not as obvious, the embryos in stem-cell research are just as alive as a one-year-old baby. Besides, if adult stem cells are just as effective, why do we even need to involve embryos?
The bottom line is that I don't know very much about stem-cell reserach, but I know that it's wrong, and I support Bush's threat to veto the bill.
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
you could probably ask my brother about stem cell research. i believe he did his research paper on it this year. he didn't talk about it much, but i would bet he knows something.
i vaguely remember hearing something about embryos having more stem cells, or they're easier to obtain, or they work better, or something that justifies the research...like from a news report a few months ago. but i'm not sure. *shrug* anyways, feel free to bug james for blogging details ;) -Sanguine
Post a Comment