To what extent should the gov impose limitations on stem cell research?

Question

What's your opinion and why? Should the gov even impose limitations?

Is you decision based off of ethics, if not, then what?

Answer 1

I am very much against abortion, so I would object to stem cell research on embryos.  Science has found that it is unnecessary anyway.

Answer 2

I don't think there should be any limitations at this point.  The fact that there even are limitations is a poor reflection of our ability to keep church and state separate.

Answer 3

No limitations. Period... This is not the 15th century. The time of religion dictating governmental policies has long passed.

Answer 4

Well, the only current limitation is no federal funding for embryonic stem cells.  Federal funding does go into other adult stem cells and cord blood.

And quite frankly, I dont know what all the hooplah over that is.  They can get way more money in private funding than they would ever be able to get in federal anyways, considering how large our deficiet is, we should be worrying about fixing that, not throwing out more money.  And since embryonic stem cells have not went into use on humans yet, there is no public insurance issues in regards to the federal funding thing.  Maybe that should be re-evaluated when there is human applications from it.

The limitations I would place....  Just like organs, I do not think people should be paid for their embryos or surgically removed fetus or baby's cord blood or bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells or any other type of stem cell.

That decision is based on ethics, and the fact that I am a stem cell transplant patient.  I was diagnosed with leukemia in 2005, relapsed in 2007 and had a stem cell transplant using 2 cord blood units last year.  If I had had to pay someone for that cord blood, over and beyond the blood bank services, I would never have had a chance.  It should be in the same category as organs.  

For that reason, I am also a lil iffy on private cord blood banks.  That almost borders on paying for stem cells.  But, we have never had to decide on something like that because its not possible to bank a heart or kidney or liver, ect.  Currently, cord blood is treated as a blood product (you can store your own blood too, for instances like surgery so you dont have to receive anyone else's blood products), not an organ, and I feel that because of the medical applications it should be considered an organ.

As far as the embryonic debate on should we or should we not...   It needs to be limited to only left over IVF and surgically removed fetus' from the abortion clinics.  No one gets paid for it. And I think ALL of these embryos or fetus that are other wise headed for the trash should be used for medical research of some type. That is also an ethical stand point, not science.  I feel that no one wanted those poor lives, it would be a slap in the face to destroy them and throw them away.  Lets make that small life that no one wanted mean something.

Answer 5

They are not putting restrictions on stem cell research, just not willing to fund it. Full steam ahead Private Sector

Answer 6

no limitations and no federal funds

Answer 7

No cloning. Otherwise no limitations. Stem cells come from a blastocyst, not a fetus, and not a baby. A blastocyst resembles a flower petal more than it does a human being.

I base this on ethics and reason.