Should stem cell research be banned?

Your first source seems to contradict Islamic views on abortion [1] [2] [3]; the author herself acknowledges that, by her reasoning, abortion ought to be permitted up to 4 months. The second source builds on this, but in a perplexing way: you're not allowed to abort said embryo if it were in the mother's womb, but you are apparently allowed to kill it if it was frozen and not intended to be implanted. One could even suggest this was some kind of contradiction.


Seems weird that things could be considered human or not, depending on where they reside.

However, thank you for your sources.

I can see it from their perspective. An embryo outside of the womb wouldn't develop into a human, whereas in the womb it (normally) would. Therefore, by taking cells from embryos not in the womb, you aren't stopping a life developing - as it wasn't there in the first place.

I read an article the other day in which they found a cure for HIV thanks to stem cell research,

Sounds a little more like a technicality to me, not to mention a new can of worms. For instance, say technology advanced to the point where re-implantation was near-100% successful. Then you could argue that it's permissable to remove an embryo and freeze it - after all, you aren't hurting its chances of living. But all of a sudden, now that it's on the ice, it's now permissible to kill the embryo (whereas it hadn't been, when it was still in the womb). Holy baloney, Sherlock, what do we do!

I hate to tell you but their is thousands of potential cures for HIV which are either to expensive or in this case to dangerous.

If it was as simple as modifying CD4 cells it would be relativelly easy to do however you need to destroy the person immune systen for the new CD4 cells to take hold hence you can kill the patient.

Im all for stem cell research (its an area id love to go into) however id like to see regulation where by the only embryotic cells used are where the mother and father have consented and understand what will happen to the cells.

This is true for thousands of different life-changing therapies. Bone marrow transplants effectively leave the patient with no immune system for weeks, but these are standard procedures in today's medicine. There are always risks involved; it's about mitigating that risk. Just because a procedure is risky doesn't mean that it's a terrible procedure; sometimes it just has to be done.

Thats the point tho in a patient requiring bone marrow transplants they are going to die (relatively soon) without it, using modern drugs HIV patient can live normal lives for 10-15years in most case significantly longer even to full life expectancy, where as attempting to treat it could kill them in a matter of days.

That sounds nice on paper, but in practice, an additional, very deadly constraint for HIV victims is cost. Stem cell treatment could develop into an alternative treatment for people who are unable to afford regular regimens of expensive antiretroviral drugs (depending, of course, on how costly it ends up). I'm not really sure what I'm trying to suggest, except that, weirdly enough, economics might beat the hell out of the Hippocratic oath at some point.

Furthermore, why would Islam be against super soldiers? Does Islam not speak of having an army and fighting being a part of the call for Muslims?

The argument that by taking embryonic stem cells you're destroying the potential for life is ridiculous cos you could argue that every time someone decides to have sex with a condom they're also destroying the potential for life because every one of those sperms could potentially be an adult.

Well, at any rate there are Muslims who will support stem cell research and Muslims who will not support said research. Aso, Egypt and Iran are working on stem cells themselves

Erm. Seriously, just stop talking unless you do a ton of research. There are several different types of stem cells, the main two being adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells come from organs, while embryonic stem cells (usually) come from embryos which are donated from IVF clinics who no longer require the embryo.

That is the major difference, the major moral difference is here. By extracting embryonic stems cells from an embryo, the embryo is destroyed. Adult stem cells have been used for years and there is no moral issue. The only issue is with embryonic stem cells: opponents of argue that all embryos can become a human, ergo it's morally wrong to experiment on them.

Adult stem cells have cured quite a few problems with people over years of research. Embryonic stem cells have not been fully tested on humans because there is concern about the cells causing cancer and other diseases to the host. The Californian research company, Geron Corporation, is the first to do a clinical test on humans (spinal cord injury patients) after a relatively successful test on rats and approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Why don't we just use adult stems cells (because embryos aren't destroyed and everyone is happy)? Well, they are multipotent - they can only change into a limited number of cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent - they have the potential to become an unlimited number of cells.

I suggest you research embryonic stem cells, the embryo that it comes from, what happens and what would have happened to that embryo had it not been used for research.

"Erm. Seriously" o

We'll stop talking when you show us your PhD and have the authority to tell us to stop talking, moron.

Lol no. It has amazing potential, and in my opinion, it is the way forward for medicine. I hate to see Bible-bashing Republicans and the sort knocking it because it isn't what they would like.