For those who oppose embryonic stem-cell research, do you oppose In vitro fertilization as well?

Yes, I oppose in-vitro fertilization as well.

I think you don't hear as much about it, or it's not as protested, because the motivation is helping a childless couple. Whereas the motivation for embryonic stem-cell research is the use of embryo's to possibly help in preventing or curing disease. We all understand the desire for a child, but it's more abhorrent to use unborn babies for research.

But from the angle of pro-life...embryonic stem-cell research is as wrong as in-vitro fertilization. Both cause the unborn to die.

Your science is a bit flawed. If you understood it well enough you could see why some could oppose it. The only stem cells that have helped patients so far are adult stem cells and many. Embryonic stem cell research has not helped a single patient." "It has a zero success rate.-0-Nada-None"" (and that is what we are paying for research now--the success rate of the other is grossly under given money for research--Japan is doing better here with a higher success rate. How do we get stem cells from embryos? They come from the "destruction" of"surplus" IVF embryos or by creating (i.e. cloning) embryos The stem cell research that has worked successfully is adult stem cell therapy. We have known about adult stem cells for about 30 years. We can access adult stem cells in many parts of our own body; the brain, bone marrow, skin, fat and many other locations. (We don't need the embryo as someone already stated) Australian researchers in Melbourne have found a technique which help in getting adult stem cells from the human brain. This could mean a cure for people suffering from Parkinson's disease and other neurological conditions that you mentioned. (Australia seems really coming to the top of board lately in research-we need to too) The success of using these cells to treat patients has been impressive. This research does not destroy embryos and does not need cloning. And, what is more, it has been very successful. A recent article in the magazine New Scientist described one type of adult stem cell as "the ultimate stem cell". The media (government) gives the impression that there is no alternative to embryonic stem cell research. That is not true. This is a deception propagated by those with a personal interest in destructive embryonic stem cell research. No one has a right to destroy embryos to do this research. We should push ahead with successful and ethical adult stem cell research which involves no destruction of embryos. Even better, it works What about those warnings. Well they are elaborated." Embronic stem cells have the problem of tissue rejection" The truth of that-Both MAY have a problem with tissue rejection (Neurology today) All surgery which involves using another part (blood transfusions too) that isn't yours May have a problem. This is not funding I support as it is geared to the wrong one. And few know enough. They just accept. "An "older" stem cell can only differentiate into certain types. For instance, bone marrow stem cells can differentiate into white blood cells, red blood cells, and megakaryocytes (cells that become platelets). "Wrong again studies show this. Japan came on strong to show this happens only in FEW cases and the same happened with Embronic stem cells. Our bodies can often reject anything new (as in blood) Those warnings apply to all. Not just one I think the greater part of our money should go to with what works not with the other where NOT ONE case has been successful. With a small amount going to new research Now On Vitro Fertilization--they" Don't" Destroy or Harm the embryos they transfer them to a new environment giving it the conditions it needs to conceive that might be in one's womb. And it works. So your science reasoning on that is flawed. Which is why little objection to it. Science--Life begins at conception

Yes, I oppose it as well. The reason I think is because public support and using public funds requires public action. And then there is the "slippery slope" that started with contraception, then abortion, then manipulations like "in vitro", cloning and anything involving destruction of embryos. So in that sense, stopping at abortion aids in stopping other unethical practices.

You must also realize, there is expertise involved in understanding the process. So scientists and church leaders have a particular obligation to protest. And my church leaders like bishops do protest the practices you mentioned. It would be nice to hear more though.

But you won't see the information in the news very much which keeps consciences uninformed. And who is going to protest if they think of it as a way to have babies and save lives. It sounds positive. Hope that helps.

I find it easier to accept, if I think we are destroying organic matter that has never experienced what we think of as life.

I would never miss a good cup of coffee if I never had one.

Death is really only a terrible thing to someone who has actually experienced life.----Or am I just rationalizing?---Hope not.

When we trim our hair or clip our finger nails, are we not destroying organic matter? Now that we know that even those skin cells that my aunt martha keeps "defolliating" ,are able to produce life, how much "murder" is continuing as we debate?

Yes the catholic church opposes both, as you have stated.

Any fertilized embryo contains the full, unique, genetic structure of a human being: 23 chromosomes. The only thing that seperates an embryo from one of us is a matter of time. It is absolutely rediculous from a scientific standpoint to argue that an embryo is not a human. Is a baby five minutes from being born (still being in the womb) any less human than a baby five minutes outside of the womb? It is a slippery, illogical, irrational, moral slope one will slide down if they do not believe that human beings are human from the moment of conception. EVEN IF we have any doubt as to the human-ness of the embryo (which I do not) should we not give human life a preference of the doubt?!

I always bring this up on the abortion questions - because obviously the stem cell debate is part of the anti-choice drumbeat. Why aren't the Jesus freaks out protesting at fertility clinics?

I don't oppose embryonic stem cell research OR in vitro fertilization. It's ironic that people who have made a fetish of the "sanctity of life" do so much to negatively impact the lives of people who have actually made it out of the womb.

I'd like those that oppose it to go say that to the face of an infertile couple

Yes we do.

It's sad that someone who is obviously as intelligent as jon jon says things like that. The difference between fertility clincs and abortion clinics is that, although misguided, their purpose is to create life, not destroy it. For that and other reasons it's clear to me that abortion clinics are the greater evil.

Actually, I do.

I went through a time of being infertile, and looked into that process, in the end I decided I could not, in good conscience, go through with that. I was looking into adoption when God decided He had other plans and I became pregnant without intervention.

yes

Although I believe that all life is equal....I would never stand in somoenes way of Abortion or stem cell research or invetro...We all have a conscience and we all have to look our maker in the eye and answer for our decisions..it is not up to me ot police others choices.

That is why God gave us free will.