Now that Science is using stem cells to cure disease, is it time we evaluate the true results of religion?

Actually, stem cells for sickle cell anemia is a stem cell transplant, as in a bone marrow transplant, which does NOT use embryonic cells at all, so this post is pointless. THe treatment is the same as for leukemias or lymphomas or myleomas. The stem cells are either bone marrow, peripheral blood stem cells, or cord blood.

Nice try, but you are wrong.

Human embryonic stem cells (hESC) only since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thompson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Adult stem cells, such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs), are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for over 40 years. More advanced techniques of collecting, or "harvesting," HSCs are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders. The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. However, these newer uses have involved studies with a very limited number of patients.

You know what, I think you're on to something. I wouldn't mind seeing people held accountable for things like this. When someone is that strong of an advocate for something without backing it up, they should ALWAYS be held accountable for the results- good or bad. In this particular case I can think of a few religious leaders and federal officials that owe humanity at least an apology- but you know what? I don't think their opinions really mattered in this situation- the government may not have been paying for stem cell research, but it certainly wasn't banned. Private organizations have been funding it and the US still spends more on it than other countries.

3 years is a long time though... a lot of people can die in 3 years... its hard to take that lightly.

You are perhaps missing a key element in the fray between religion and science.

There is a profound difference between human morality and Biblical morality. You will never find a balanced compromise between the two. Christians and others who believe in a moral standard set by God believe God's word sufficiently enough to recognize that stem cell research offers physical benefits to humanity, However, the purpose of religion is to worship God and (hopefully) understand His purposes and ways.

Jesus willingly gave His life for others. But those who take the life of an innocent who cannot voice his/her will, and then profit from that death, are not doing humanity a kindness. They demoralize life and undermine its sanctity. Over the last decades since Rowe vs.Wade, society has been duped into believing a lie, and indiscriminately desensitized to God's Commandments.

It seems like you are trying to pin the blame down on all religious people. I have nothing against stem cell research. I don't think it is going to come up with all the miracle cures that people think it will. But all the same, I'm not against it.

Maybe you should go find the religious group that stopped it and see what they think. That would be better than trying to blame me.

Using the same logic let's look at another case.....

Form 1947 to 1952 Hitler wiped out over 5 million people mostly jews. While whiping them out he conducted vast experements on them from electrocution to brain surgery to well, you get the picture. The medical world saw an explosion of information based on these test when the regime fell. Using your same logic was it them morally right to attempt the genocide of several races of people to advance medical science?

A human life is a human life wether it's jewish or embrionic.

Answer to edit:

"Embryonic stem cells are not equal to living Jews and your attempt to compare them as the same thing is a little scary."

To get embryotic stem cells you must kill embrios. Now we may get to arguing when a life is a life, but, as you know, the christian belief is life begins at conception which comes before the formation of an embrio.

Like I've said in other questions, I think religion is primitive. For example, the bible was written many years ago, in a time where women had no rights, slavery was promoted, etc. People still follow it to the letter in some cases. Some religious zealots need to get out of the dark ages and realize we are living in a more advanced society.

Meaningless attack on religion! Who said all "religious" people are against this?? Stem cells are from many sources.

Most of our greatest scientific discoveries were by BELIEVERS anyway. God created the ability for us to even us science, and gave the universe immense fine tuning.

Well, considering the largest question....does religion hinder technological advancement? Resounding YES. Now, is that a bad thing? Not necessarily.

Granted, I am no believer, but the reason disease exists is to control the population. If you start mitigating these controls, you're going to end up with a whole nother kind of problem. Then how will you weed out the "extras"?

Stem cells from skin cells are NOT embryonic.

Stem cells from embryos are embryonic.

And actually, all the stem cell therapy successes I've ever read about involve stem cells that come from non-embryonic sources.

The stem cells in your third source are made from skin cells of adult mice, not embryos.

(Your 2nd link did not work for me, and I couldn't find what you meant on the first one.)

Edit:

I'm sorry, your definition is bad. If stem cells come from a source other than an embryo, they are not embryonic.

And embryonic stem cell reaserch is not banned, it is just not funded by certain governments.

Edit II:

BTW, I acknowledge that religion does cause incredible harm today, but let's keep our facts straight.

Edit III:

From your third source:

>"Induced pluripotent stem," or iPS, cells, are virtually identical to embryonic stem cells. They can morph into all of the more than 200 cell types in the body but are derived from skin, not from embryos.<

Another advantage of this type of stem cell is that it used the patient's own cells, so that there is NO issue of transplant rejection or graft-vs-host disease (this is stated in that very same article).