Forgive me if this has been posted before, but I'm doing a course in school, and it requires that I spawn the original post.
So, uh... yeah. I'm doing a course in school to look up controversial sciences, and my blindfolded finger prodded the words 'Stem Cell'. As such, you guys' inputs would be very much appreciated. This makes the final feather in my multiple-source-requirement hat (sources of choice being Wiki, books, one of my teachers' relatives, and the opinion of a big community).
So, to the actual topic...
In my research of Stem Cells, I found out that a lot of ethically frowned-upon stuff goes into the research. For example, the best-known way of harvesting them ends up killing the embryo (which is, to some, tantamount to murder). I also found that they have a whole religion going against them (no surprise, being honest), that the Roman Catholic doctrine sorta goes against it. But it's also a belief that that's incorrect, because an embryo isn't life, rather the potential thereof, which pretty much makes it okay (forgive my bluntness).
Some people also think it's just an unnatural process and we shouldn't be adding ambiguous cells to our patients in the same way that a child stacks LEGO together.
But with that, they can also be massively beneficial, given that the research be perfected. We could help people with Parkinsonism, damaged spinal cords, spastic diplesiacs, car crash victims, and anyone else like those and more.
So why are there so many nay-sayers? Personally, I think that treading on the potential lives of a few unborn and hardly-developped children is an acceptible sacrifice if it means we get to improve the quality of life for those who were born unlucky.
...that, and putting extra ears on mice is something people would pay to see.
#Edit: I have no doctrine to believe in on the involiability of life, for I am athiest. This helps my own opinion by removing one hurdle.
#IMPORTANT EDIT: This is a school assignment. If we can kindly keep the bad language as low as possible. Preferably not going above "Crap" and "Ass" and stuff like that. Thanks.
So, uh... yeah. I'm doing a course in school to look up controversial sciences, and my blindfolded finger prodded the words 'Stem Cell'. As such, you guys' inputs would be very much appreciated. This makes the final feather in my multiple-source-requirement hat (sources of choice being Wiki, books, one of my teachers' relatives, and the opinion of a big community).
So, to the actual topic...
In my research of Stem Cells, I found out that a lot of ethically frowned-upon stuff goes into the research. For example, the best-known way of harvesting them ends up killing the embryo (which is, to some, tantamount to murder). I also found that they have a whole religion going against them (no surprise, being honest), that the Roman Catholic doctrine sorta goes against it. But it's also a belief that that's incorrect, because an embryo isn't life, rather the potential thereof, which pretty much makes it okay (forgive my bluntness).
Some people also think it's just an unnatural process and we shouldn't be adding ambiguous cells to our patients in the same way that a child stacks LEGO together.
But with that, they can also be massively beneficial, given that the research be perfected. We could help people with Parkinsonism, damaged spinal cords, spastic diplesiacs, car crash victims, and anyone else like those and more.
So why are there so many nay-sayers? Personally, I think that treading on the potential lives of a few unborn and hardly-developped children is an acceptible sacrifice if it means we get to improve the quality of life for those who were born unlucky.
...that, and putting extra ears on mice is something people would pay to see.
#Edit: I have no doctrine to believe in on the involiability of life, for I am athiest. This helps my own opinion by removing one hurdle.
#IMPORTANT EDIT: This is a school assignment. If we can kindly keep the bad language as low as possible. Preferably not going above "Crap" and "Ass" and stuff like that. Thanks.
