Your tendency to make assumptions proves arrogance.

"You need to actually look some stuff up, rather than just staunchly disagreeing with everyone".

That is a complete assumption and not at all factual.

I dig deep. That is where I find that embryonic stem cell research is harmful.

hypermonkey : Actually, stem cells from adults and the umbilical are not as useful for research though, as those are filled with host DNA, way too much to be useful for use in developing a cure for anything other then what the host might suffer.

But anyways, non harmfull stem cell gathering has been around since before 2006 and is detailed in part in "Wiley Science - Stem Cell Transplantation".
I suggest anyone in USA that wants to catch up a bit read this, in particular Chapter 8 "A Large Animal Non-Injury Model for Study of Human Stem Cell Plasticity" as it outlines the facts.

If you're lazy, just read the conclusion on page 129

Hoochman : Give links to your research please.

I don't know why everybody wants to halt all medical advancement when a baby is involved! wouldn't it be OK to sacrifice one baby to make sure thousands, millions grow up healthier and free from things like MS? I don't agree with the population on this earth already, but one for millions is certainly OK in my book.

Hoochman : You don't seem to be reading DH's posts very much. I take the stance of hypermonkey, iBock, and Zamiel: Yes, it is a human life and no, we shouldn't harm it, but why do so if we don't have to? America is much further behind in this than other countries, so while in America, embryonic stem cell research shouldn't be done until we learn how to do it without harm, in other countries, as long as the embryo is perfectly fine, why not go for it?

I could suggest a reason why he might be against it... I've heard this reason from Christians before...

It would be akin to "playing God". And while it would be... I agree with Bobby. If you can develop technology to prevent genetic disease in millions of future children... it's hard to be against that.

geeogree : That argument is treading a fine line. If this would be playing God, then so would all medical practice... and I for one don't see curing disease as wrong.

bignate - just telling what the argument might be against it... but I disagree with you opinion that any medical practice is playing God... we're not talking about fixing broken bones or treating illness, we are talking about possibly having the power to change the genetic structure of a human being. It would be more serious.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for this. I would love to see paralysed people able to walk again, even if the mobility is limited... the possibilities of this research is enormous.

geeogree : I know you don't agree.
Well, I guess I kinda explained it wrong. The way I see it: you can't really play God. If somebody's supposed to die, if God's decided it's up for them, then they're gonna die, whatever you do. I see it as a simple means of helping people. The fact that He has allowed us to discover this kind of thing makes it seem to me like there's nothing wrong with it.

bignate - well, acutally, now that you explained it THAT way.. I think we agree pretty well. Maybe we're both just not explaining our side very well

I'm not going to rant on how wrong I think it is so I'll just say this:

I'm waaaay against abortion and to me, this is the same as abortion so I absolutely do not agree with it.

XxChaosxX :

Have you read any of the other posts? I have went through the entire 3 pages and you seem to be in the same boat as Hoochman. You are against abortion because of a couple reasons that I could possibly guess
1. You believe that life starts at conception
so
2. Abortion means killing an innocent(which could be argued) life.


Now if you would have read the posts, and looked at the statements which each side says are facts, only DarkHyren actually backed up his statements by looking and a providing article.

DarkHyren is arguing that you can collect (the word harvest has negative connotations associated with it I think for this debate), stem cells from embryos with harming the embryo, thus allowing the embryo to develop and come to term. This means that everyting is gained and nothing is lost. In fact he stated they have been doing this in New Zealand on animals (I believe).

Thus to anyone saying the embryo is destroyed, please provide us with facts. It is easy to make a statement but harder to provide facts, and blindly disagreeing with someone without actually providing a reason other than the person is wrong (Hoochman), means that you are in fact ignorant.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe, but believe when what you believe harms others or inhibits others (people with terminal illnesses that could be cured), re-evaluated your stance by seeing what the other side is offering (Embryonic stem cells with causing harm to the embryo). Then research the validity of the point and then either choose to make a new stance or re-affirm your old one.

I understand full well what you are talking about. However, I wasn't going to sit here and read three pages worth of posts. Maybe if the posts were a little shorter I would have but I didn't feel like reading that much. I normally do but I just decided to post and not read this time. My opinion was aked for so I gave a simple answer. I don't agree with it because it's like abortion. I didn't go into great detail because I was in a hurry. I was trying to get 250 posts so I was just skimming through posts and replying to them.

I understand that you can harvest the stem cells from the umbilical cord and not hurt the fetus at all. But it wasn't specified what kind of stem cells to be taken so I just assumed we were talking about the harvesting from the fetus. Yes I completely agree that if it doesn't harm the fetus that it's alright. But until the doctors start only harvesting from the umbilical cord I'm going to disagree with it.