Should the Supreme Court ensure the funding of embryonic stem cell research?

  • Such Amazing Potential, Lost due to People's Stubbornness

    Stem Cells have the ability to cure diseases, like Diabetes, Parkinson, and even Cancer!
    It sickens me to know that there are people who are willing to throw this gift away, just because they don't want to have small sacs of dividing cells with no brain, heart, or nerves be used in the research.
    I've had a grandfather pass away to Parkinson's, I've had several family member die from cancer, and I know people who struggle to live normally with diabetes. But according to the negative side, it more important to save these eggs that aren't even remotely human yet.

  • Of course.

    The possibilities that embryonic stem cell research could provide to us as human beings is enormous. We could level the playing field with the Health Care industry in the U.S. and eliminate most of the high costs, and unneeded professions that are killing the average American's pocket book. We could cure cancer, produce organs for transplantation, and just all out start saving lives! Technology is here, and we need to embrace it.

  • There are numerous benefits to stem cell research.

    Stem cells are the last frontier in terms of medical science. They hold countless answers to many of the medical problems we face today. While it is controversial that they come from embryos, I do not believe that an embryo is a person. Under this stance there is no moral opposition to stem cell research and I think it should go forward.

  • A person's a person no matter how small.

    I'd be all for embryonic stem cell research if it were possible to extract stems cells from embryos without killing them. It doesn't seem right that we should fund something that kills people. And I don't think the benefits to society justify it anymore than Josef Mengele was justified in the experiments he performed on people resulting in their deaths.

  • No. It would go against our economic system.

    The United States' economy has been flourishing under the market - or capitalistic - economy system. We believe in "free enterprise," and the government is to provide only the public goods such as roads, lighthouses, military defense, etc.
    Surely there could be an argument of whether the embryonic stem cell research can be a public good or not. I do not think it is because it is not a "necessity." We have done well without it. It is not something that is "pressing or urgent need, especially that arising from poverty," according to its definition.
    The United States is running under a deficit now. We have more important areas such as reducing debt, decreasing unemployment rate, etc., to spend our funding right now.
    From looking at what happened to the Soviet Union and the U.S., we also need to acknowledge that "competition" is what makes the economy grow.

  • No, let the people do the research instead of the government.

    No, the Supreme Court should not ensure funding for embryonic stem cell research. This equates to mandating that stem cell research be a public good. Instead, private research firms should be allowed to shoulder this responsibility in a fair and competitive environment. This will lead to more advances in the research being done and provide a higher quality “product” for the consumers.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.