As for the religious angle, well every religion says to preserve life. It's not only the Christians but Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims preach it too and I don't think they are too happy with the natural tinkering with the body and genetic code.
It has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, but it's a pet peeve of mine. Catholics ARE Christians. It's the single largest denomination. As a former Catholic myself, I can't stand it being separated.
We now return to the original conversation.
Now, it's actually not particularly new news that you can get stem cells in non-controversial ways. I've known about the trick of converting skin cells into functioning (and obviously compatible with the host even) stem cells for a while now, and I think there was something in the bone marrow as well...didn't know you could take it from the eye, but that's great as well. In a creepy way. I hate the idea of things near my eyes.
Anyway, stem cells is a bigger medical leap than penicillin was. They're fantastic in their application, both in variety and effectiveness, and, speaking as a Baptist here, anyone who objects to using them (barring killing fetuss....feti? What's the plural of fetus?) needs to have their head examined. Most people blame religion for the whole taboo against stem cells in general, but I blame it on human nature. We, as a species, have a tendency to move towards extremes. It's difficult (and less interesting to report, sadly) to just say so when just one part of something is bad while the rest of it is gold coated in platinum covered in the Lapis Philosphorum. No, no, it has to be all bad...
As for the "tampering with God's unique creation bit"...The genetic code is not your soul. Your immortal essence isn't about to be screwed with along with your body. Do I think that arbitrarily modifying our DNA for any given reason is a good idea? No, but that's only because tinkering with one bit of your code isn't likely to change only one thing, or do so predictably. The human body is a very complicated series of systems and changing one thing tends to change many. The overall effects would be wide reaching, not to mention the generations of changes we could make after that building on the original changes (in which case we're likely to be working without a clear previous path). Now, I'm not saying we're going to end up as Bioshock Splicers....but we could very well end up worse if we're not smart and careful of it. Jumping onto research and screaming "Science is great! If you try to hold it back for any reason you're an idiot!" without thinking of the consequences is just as bad (and perhaps more dangerous) as saying "Science is bad! If you use advanced research you're clearly a monster!" without thinking of the consequences. But yeah, overall? I believe God gave us a brain for a reason and I don't think it involves not helping people when we're capable of doing so without hurting others. With non-fetal stem cells, we have very nearly a moral obligation TO develop the research (again, not wildly and uncontrollably, but without sensationalism and without degrading our moral centers in the name of progress). If we have the power, right now, to cure at least certain forms of blindness, why the heck wouldn't we use it if it isn't hurting anyone? It's not even the biggest thing we could potentially do with them, by a wide margin...
Anyway, the majority of people, religious or not, wouldn't find any problem with using the same cells that you were originally born from when you explain the source is the person's own body, of all things. Will others object? Yes, but there are unintelligent or ignorant (NOT the same thing I should point out) in every field. They are, unfortunately, usually the loudest.
