To pro-lifers.?

We have about there hundred thousand fetuses in test tubes right now; they cannot experiment on them because of laws existing now. These fetuses left alone will not actually grow up to live. Why vote for non use of these already domed fetuses to allow for say the cure to cancer or aids or other things that they are so close to curing but out of fetuses to test with? These fetuses are already doomed why not use them to save thousands of doomed people? Is that too much to ask?

to brodie g yes i would, even if an entire adult human being had to be sacrificed to further help the worl if their was almost a one hundred percent chance that it would help humanity (which is such with stem cell research) i would be the first in line to sacrifice myself.

First: It is a complete myth that the embryos (not fetuses) frozen right now will "not grow up to live." Repeatedly, the medical community has confirmed that only 1-2% of these embryos are unwanted by their parents. Of that 1-2%, a significant number are sought to be adopted by couples who cannot conceive, lacking viable sperm and eggs. Many children have been conceived this way (I think about 200 in America, with many more in utero) and this will increase as time goes by. The remaining 98-99% of frozen embryos are awaiting future implantation attempts by their parents.

Second: The position that fetal/embryonic stem cells are somehow better than adult or cord blood stem cells is also a complete myth. Repeated studies show that embryonic stem cells grow uncontrollably and most times result in the growth of tumors. Adult and cord blood stem cells, on the other hand, do not react this way, either in vivo or in vitro.

Third: Medical science has not even touched the surface of everything adult stem cells can do. They can be harvested from virtually anywhere, but the nose, baby teeth (not from a fetus) and skin seem to be the most popular. Before we destroy human life, shouldn't we first completely exhaust the possibilities adult stem cells have to offer? To do otherwise is imprudent and premature.

Fourth: Embryonic stem cell research IS NOT banned by any law. Instead, Federal money may not be used to fund these research projects. The veto given by President Bush upheld this Federal ban.

Many folks, including myself, believe some liberal scientists are pushing embryonic stem cells as "the best way to go" on a scientifically ignorant American public for an awful reason: they want to start human cloning. Because the problem of tissue rejection is negated by cloning, the patient doesn't need to take costly medications, experience the side effects, and possibly face rejection of the organ or part. Once we slide down that slippery slope, it will be an indication our society has become morally bankrupt.

Each American would do well to look into this issue much, much deeper than the media will allow.

no..it's not to much too ask...but i'm sure everyone else will tell you other wise....

Yes, because there are plenty of willing parties that will adopt them and be implanted. I, for one, would take one. The laws may prevent the HUMANS from being tested on, but they also make it difficult to adopt them. Unfortunately, every human being living is just not getting that they once started as a fetal human, and that even though it's not "viable" (a concept that is completely subjective, as with a good argument anyone under 18 could be considered not viable) it's still a PERSON.

Great point! Its call eyes wide shut syndrome.

I am pro-life and I am strongly against Abortion. I do, however, think stem cell research would be very beneficial to helping cure diseases - I vote NO to ABORTION and I would vote yes to stem cell research, so it's not all pro-lifers against stem cell research. Now if it's proven that babies are being killed to do stem cell research, then I will definitely be against the research.

Would you support stem cell research if it were the adult rather than infant stem cells we needed? Or what if we had to use babies between 1 and 2 years old?

Response: The problem is that it's not just one fetus. We're talking thousands upon thousands. Would you still be comfortable sacrificing as many people as we do fetuses? And we're not talking about beings who are volenteering here. It would be akin to say using mentally handicapped people or babies for this research.

My point is that pro-lifers start with the position that life begins at conception. So in order to believe in abortion/research on a fetus, in order to be consistant we'd have to allow it at any age. I'm pointing out that most people would be uncomfortable with performing research on babies but we'd have to be ok with it for consistancy.

I would not personally buy my health or life at the expense of another Innocent life. I am Catholic and we are against fetal stem cell research but then we are equally against creating fetuses outside of the mother. These children should be donated to those unable to create their own or buried simple. Humans are not hosts you can carve up to provide spare parts.

As long as there will be people, there will be couples suffering from infertility. In extreme circumstances, the infirtile couple will even accept those embryos of differing DNA out of desperation.

Why focus so hard on embryonic stem cell research when umbilical stem cells (a.k.a. cord blood stem cells), bone marrow stem cells, adult neural stem cells, hemopoietic stem cells, adipose derived adult stem cells, olfactory stem cells, and the rest of the neverending stem cells already present in the human body?

Brodie: "Or what if we had to use babies between 1 and 2 years old?"

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.

I by no means have a stronge opinion on this issue, but I'll say what I think ;)
Yes, if this testing were to be conducted in the manner that they claim it would, and all precautions would be taken to ensure that no abuse would take place, this would be a wonderful fairytale of happy happy fun shine law that would pass and make the world a better place.
But we all know better.
First: This would most likely (when has it NOT happened?) cause many problems and pose danger to live fetuses. Why? If the supply runs low, some doctors might sucumb to the desire to "fill" the demand. This sort of thing might not run rampant, but even one instance of it is enough to make many feel that it's not worth it.
Second: If you can make such a broad statement as to say that this research "will" cure cancer, allow me to make an equally assumptive statement. The cure for cancer could have been found years ago. They don't want a cure for cancer. This research won't be used to cure cancer. It will be used to find other drugs to sell to the masses, that barely do their job. If they cure people, they lose thier income, and they know this. If they invent diseases and supply a drug that must be taken 3 times a day for the rest of your life that removes just enough symptoms to make you happy, all the while making 30 bucks a pill....do you trust them to turn down that sort of income and put themselves out of work in your best interest? I don't. It would be naive to do so.
Just my two cents, and marginally informed opinion.