In Support of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

1. Actually, in my rebuttal, it is proven that currently adult stem cells have been used to cure and there are many clinical trials involving the use of them. Using blood cells from a fetal cord, despite the assertion, does not present the same moral or ethical dilemmas because it does not involve the destruction of human embryos. Also, these dilemmas are not confined to religion or political beliefs for this neglects bio-ethics all together. I would point out I addressed the supposed advantage and the limitation of adult stem cells while noting the limitation has been diminished by advances and new discoveries. My opponent failed to address the very serious problem of embryonic stem cells being proven repeatedly in experiments to be cancer forming while also being rejected by the body's immune system nor was the issue of actual cures and clinical trials, and there is only a single clinical trial. So far, embryonic stem cell research hasn't lived up to the hype or extraordinary claims made by supporters. 2. As for the destruction of embryos, also at stake is the dilemma of growing and destroying them to harvest them for cells to use in experiments. Like the pro-abortion defense, the argument always reverts to dehumanization, given that every single one of us underwent precisely the same stages of development. My opponent raises the objection that adult stem cells have the potential for DNA mutations, but this has been observed in embryonic stem cell experiments, which as my opponent mentioned, are capable of indefinite division and they build up mutations as they undergo these constant divisions. I have already pointed out my opponent neglects the high probability of them being cancerous as well as being reject by the immune system. At any rate, I reject the dichotomy and I'm not voting other than to offer my views based on what is currently known. 3. Those regulations and guidelines can just as easily be enforced without forcing taxpayers to subsidize research. It is quite damning that for all the hype about the miracle wonders possible with embryonic stem cell research, advocates demand corporate welfare to subsidize the research as opposed to voluntarily funding it it through donations. If President Obama can have $30,000 a plate fundraisers in Hollywood, why can't the same be done for embryonic stem cell research? Researchers are always reluctant to put up their own money when they can make a great living, compared to average American, and ask for a handout from the government. My opponent neglected to tackle the fact that our national debt is in excess of 100% of GDP, the massive unfunded liabilities of entitlements, huge annual budget deficits, or the fact our Government actually borrow $8 trillion annually. The problem of economic scarcity, unlimited needs and wants versus finite resources and capital, which means the government is pulling out our capital and consuming a greater and greater share of the resources. You also create an entrenched lobby that will make extravagant promises while producing nothing, which is where embryonic stem cell research is despite all the money. Politicians and bureaucrats are the worst people to make determinations, especially when you yourself say it is complex. The market is a superior force to the government; it only drives up cost, inefficiently spends, and ultimately wastes money at the expense of other research fields. I would close by thanking my opponent for the debate and urge caution given that it remains to be seen whether embryonic stem cell research will do any good and so far has done no good.