Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I need a lot of information about stem cell

Aliorca — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:35:29 GMT

I am interested in this treatment for my brain damaged daughter. Have you gotten any additional information on it.

I found a lot of information about Regenobody stem cell clinic in the Dominican Republic and they gave me information about that but I need to know more.

Any help would really be appreciated.
Thanks

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

lbpmi — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:51:03 GMT

Embryonic Stem Cell Research is unethical and medically unneccessary according to current research.
- It is unethical to encourage and use the stem cells from aborted human beings for scientific human research purposes. I am totally against my tax dollars funding a practice which is against my moral and ethical values.
- It is medically unneccessary as the most promising research involves the use of adult stem cells. As recently reported "As recently as last week, researchers announced that they had successfully turned ethically created cells into the neurons that break down in Parkinson's disease. The week before, scientists produced evidence that they had treated Parkinson's in a patient with his own adult stem cells. Almost daily, researchers are celebrating new breakthroughs without compromising a single human life. Over 70 diseases and conditions have already been treated through adult stem cells, helping patients overcome everything from juvenile diabetes to heart disease. There is a common misconception that ESC research hasn't yielded these same results because it's not legal. It is. Only federal funding has been restricted. Private, commercial, and even state ESC experiments continue to no avail. That's why the ESC community is so desperate for federal funding. Many of the private ESC financiers see the method as an expensive failure. Even Dr. James Thomson, who first grew human ESC in 1998, has pulled his resources from embryos and invested in induced pluripotent (or iPS) cells, because, apart from the satisfying the moral dilemma, these cells are easier and cheaper to reproduce. " - Tony Perkins, Washington Update

A Couple Thoughts

Caldera — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:29:48 GMT

President Obama first clears the way for doctor assisted killing of innocent babies by abortion which now of course, provides the stock for his Stem Cell research today. Just as the public has been legislatively mugged by these hasty and thoughtless "spending" packages where no less than 7% will be wasted (some $50+ billion), our moral standards are likewise being swept aside by the flow of blood from the executive pen.

Secondly, while I'm not opposed to Stem Cell research in and of itself, it is the process by which the cells are obtained that I am vehemently opposed. There are a lot of babies who die for various natural or sometimes unnatural reasons and if the cells were obtained from these instead of deliberately aborted children, I would not have a problem.

Mr. Obama failed in being too quick to act without thoughts of the implications and just as the money that is being poured into the pockets of the greedy without sufficient regulation, so also has the causes of life and death been moderated without brevity, caution or due process of thought.

What's your opinion on Pres. Obama lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research?

mrslg — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:08:40 GMT

God bless President Obama for his courage and compassion. Many innocent children are suffering and dying from horrendous diseases that may be cured through stem cell research.

Stem cell controversy

Boreas — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:23:49 GMT

Ben Feller and Lauran Neergaard wrote in the Patriot-News, Sunday, 3/7, "The research is controversial because days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away." In other words, people get upset when these embryos are destroyed for research, but they don't seem to be bothered by the fact that these same embryos are otherwise going into the biological trashcan. What's the difference? Either way, they are doomed. The same logic that condemns the researchers also condemns the fertility clinics, but there's no outrage over the fertility clinics' disposing of embryos. Conversely, if the embryos are doomed anyway, why not let them serve some useful purpose, such as research?