2008 Woodie Awards
Say no to embryonic stem cell research
Commentary
Jessica Woods, Jambar Contributor
Issue date: 4/1/08 Section: Opinion
People in favor of stem cell research argue that embryonic stem cells are necessary to the cause because they have the ability to become any type of human cell. They insist that adult stem cells are less important because they do not have the capacity to generate any type of human tissue the way an embryonic cell can.
However, the average citizen who is not a professor of biology, student at NEOUCOM or scientist of genealogy does not understand the implications of embryonic stem cell research.
The facts speak for themselves. Embryonic stem cells are only viable for five to seven days post-conception. This means that in order to extract their cells, they must also be terminated. Once introduced to an adult (in this case, meaning a human that has been born, regardless of age), embryonic stem cells have a high rejection rate and may also be the catalyst of tumors and cell dysfunctions.
To date, there have not been any human beings that have benefited from embryonic stem cells. No diseases have been cured; no rapid turnarounds have manifested with these cells. On the other hand, adult stem cells have been successfully used to treat spinal cord injuries, leukemia, Parkinson's disease and blood disorders. There is proof of their power that did not come at the cost of a human life or exploitation of reproductive rights.
It is imperative that we thoroughly investigate the facts before forming an opinion. The media touts embryonic stem cell research as the answer to all of our health problems when this is in fact a fallacy.
There are alternatives to destroying human life, and to maintain our humanity and compassion it is essential to explore the possibilities of what has already been proven to work: adult stem cells.
However, the average citizen who is not a professor of biology, student at NEOUCOM or scientist of genealogy does not understand the implications of embryonic stem cell research.
The facts speak for themselves. Embryonic stem cells are only viable for five to seven days post-conception. This means that in order to extract their cells, they must also be terminated. Once introduced to an adult (in this case, meaning a human that has been born, regardless of age), embryonic stem cells have a high rejection rate and may also be the catalyst of tumors and cell dysfunctions.
To date, there have not been any human beings that have benefited from embryonic stem cells. No diseases have been cured; no rapid turnarounds have manifested with these cells. On the other hand, adult stem cells have been successfully used to treat spinal cord injuries, leukemia, Parkinson's disease and blood disorders. There is proof of their power that did not come at the cost of a human life or exploitation of reproductive rights.
It is imperative that we thoroughly investigate the facts before forming an opinion. The media touts embryonic stem cell research as the answer to all of our health problems when this is in fact a fallacy.
There are alternatives to destroying human life, and to maintain our humanity and compassion it is essential to explore the possibilities of what has already been proven to work: adult stem cells.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 10
Ted
posted 4/01/08 @ 8:45 PM EST
Is there some kind of boilerplate out there regarding the use of human embryos for stem cells? Every single message uses the same argument word-for-word. (Continued…)
Liam
posted 4/02/08 @ 3:09 PM EST
This article is riddled with mis truths.
1st In the 3rd paragraph you said the embryo has to be
harvested from a person. WRONG. The embryos are harvested via in vitro fertilization. (Continued…)
David
posted 4/02/08 @ 10:51 PM EST
Comments:
In response to Liam:
a. Occasionally the embryos can be harvested from Human beings. This is the case on rare occasions where a girl becomes pregnant and instead of using an abortifacient she choses to have the embryo harvested and utilized for Human Stem Cell Research. (Continued…)
don margolis
posted 4/04/08 @ 6:31 AM EST
I would like to give TED what he wishes, something new that doesn't give a fig about the so-called moral issue. Take a look at the usual comments, intelligent drivel about nothing that matters. (Continued…)
Austin Hesee
posted 4/05/08 @ 2:45 AM EST
You imply that embryonic stem cell is immoral, yet why not use those that are slated to be destroyed anyway. Do you object to the practice of disposing of access embryos as loudly as their destruction for research? Yes it's been 10 years, and they haven't cured anyone, but there is promise in lab animals. (Continued…)
Dieter Smith
posted 4/06/08 @ 5:21 AM EST
To Don,
You speak as if yours is the only ?moral? viewpoint ?hardly. It seems to be just a case of dogma rather than reason. As far as nudging someone back to humanity, you don?t seem to be in a position to do that. (Continued…)
Dieter Smith
posted 4/06/08 @ 5:24 AM EST
to Don,
You speak as if yours is the only ?moral? viewpoint ?hardly. It seems to be just a case of dogma rather than reason. As far as nudging someone back to humanity, you don?t seem to be in a position to do that. (Continued…)
spider
posted 9/03/08 @ 10:42 PM EST
I am a mom who can not have anymore kids. My eggs are being wasted. Men see their sperm to sperm banks if I don't care and he don't care, no female is carring these eggs that are being fertizlized why does it make a difference that it is being used to potentially save lives. (Continued…)
Post a Comment