In response to Natalie's post

This blog is in response to Natalie's post about stem cell research.   I thought I would comment on this blog because my blog post was also about stem cell research.  After reading Natalie’s post, I have come to the conclusion that she understands the differences in controversy in much the same way I do.  The differences in opinion caused by religion, politics, and other partial parties.  Through religion, people are influenced to the idea that the immorality of, technically, killing another human being so that they refuse to accept any notion of the idea that has even the slightest inclination of coinciding with the ideal that opposes their religion.  On the other hand, politicians and scientists are pushing for new and continued research with stem cells because of the benefits.  It IS true that there are amazing benefits that have already come from stem cells; transplants have been increasingly successful and common as the research has shown that stem cells help patients’ organs successfully transition to the new hosts.  The research that has been done in the past greatly affects how medicine works today.  In similarity, the research that could be done in later years could prove to be useful in even more ways than have been already discovered.  However, I must contrast Natalie’s opinion about stem cell research.  I think that embryonic stem cells are immoral and there should be no research done with them.  Because of the effect on the living embryo, the research should be stopped immediately.  There has been a lot of research done with them and the datum collected should prove plentiful enough to allow for reusing and analysis of the information.  However, adult stem cell research would be beneficial to all people because of the maturation of the cells and the way they would affect all humans.