What's so wrong with embryonic stem cell research?

Its evil.

I assume you mean embryonic stem cell research? As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong), stem cell research as a whole is typically not debated as inherently wrong.

@TenaciousDenny Yes, I’ll rephrase the question.

Absolutely nothing.

The argument is that an abortion has to occur, a life has to die, in order to have the cells to use. Aborting a child just for it’s cells would be immoral in my opinion, but using cells from embryos tht have already been aborted would not be as objectionable to me. I hate that people are usually “black and white” on this issue. There are many areas of grey as well.
Some people fear the “slippery slope” that eventually we will clone people for replacement parts. The line is not real clear and the people with the strongest opinions are pretty loud about trying to show us where they think the line should be drawn.

I think this debate mirrors the abortion debate. Since you have to basically destroy a fetus to acquire the embryonic stem cells, it depends on when you consider a life begins. I would imagine that those who are pro-choice are also pro embryonic stem cell research, and vice versa.

I like the idea of using extra fertilized eggs caused by fertility treatment, and not used by the couple. Those embryos are destroyed eventually anyway, why not use them for a good purpose first?

@Judi But from what I’ve read, they’re not aborting a child for the stem cells. They use cells from a blastocyst which has been fertilized in vitro in a fertility center and donated to science with the donors’ consent . If they’re not going to be used, I guess I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

No one gets pregnant and has an abortion in order to supply stem cells for research. If that bundle of cells is just going to get flushed down the drain, why not use them to research ways to help people?

This debate is defunct. The kind of cells that are the most useful for stem cell research are called pluripotent, because they can become any type of cell found in the body. The need for embryonic stem cells was back when you could only get pluripotent cells from embryonic stem cells. It’s now possible to create a pluripotent cell from normal adult cells. It’s certainly EASIER to use embryonic stem cells since you don’t have to mess with them, but it’s not necessary.

Here’s the paper in Nature explaining: http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0712/071206/full/stemcells.2007.124.html

@augustlan Did you know that you can adopt out your unused eggs from in vitro…there is a group called snowflake adoption that work at finding a home for the unused eggs. It’s another option instead of just destroying them, especially if a person is pro-life. They would have to be ok with the adoption idea, I think it’s neat.

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm

@miasmom I had no idea. Pretty cool!

@miasmom That’s cool :)

What’s so wrong with embryonic stem cell research?

Because it uses leftover, never-implanted fertilized eggs that would normally be thrown away as medical waste. Perhaps those who oppose it think that they should be burned with the trash as God intended.

@miasmom true, that’s another possibility for the cells, but there are many more unused eggs than people willing to adopt.
I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with using a fertilized egg, as far as I’m concerned, for something to be human it has to exhibit human characterists and be aware of its surroundings in a congnitive sense.

it’s just wrong to think it’s wrong i guess….oh well, they’ll burn in hell in the end

On the contrary, I think it’s totally fine to think it’s wrong. Those who believe it’s wrong can decline to engage in the research, can vote against ballot measures when they come up, and – here’s the best one – can decline any life-enhancing or life-saving measures that were ever developed, in whole or in part, through stem cell research, including denying such benefits to their children. That’s perfectly acceptable.

@laureth Well put. Lurve.