Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral debate of stem cell research
Moral debate of stem cell research
Embryonic stem cell and ethical theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Moral debate of stem cell research
Researching the future potential of embryonic stem cells is the new hot topic debate in ethics. The moral objections from two opposing sides clash in a political and ethical battle of who is correct. Each faction tries to define the classification of what deserves unalienable human rights. Likewise, determining what is classified as human behavior such as sentiment, interests and pain has been the ground on which pro-stem cell research stand. Since these embryos share only genetic similarities and no human characteristics, it is permissible to this stance to kill them in the name of medicine. On the other hand, anti-embryonic stem cell research believes that the human life begins at conception. Consequently, the status of the embryo is considered human and should deserve respect and rights the same as a human. In this term paper, two differing argumentative articles will be analyzed for ethical theories.
The reason researches in the biomedical field want to harvest and test stem cells are because of their unknown capabilities to perhaps cure Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease and spinal cord injuries. Research has been slowed by differing opinions on the definition of the status of the embryo as morally or genetically human. Richard M. Doerflinger calls this difference of opinion a “confrontation between religion and science” (Doerflinger, 2010).Stem cell research is focused on embryos that are donated by couples who have created embryos through in-vitro fertilization (Steinbock, 2007). The question researchers, funders, politicians and citizens are asking is when does the human life begin? Furthermore, ethicists are looking to determine what makes something human the rights that it deserves.
One peer reviewed art...
... middle of paper ...
...tarianism, Kantianism and situation ethics. Killing innocent embryos in the name of medicine could benefit the greater good but the premise of killing the beginning of a human life is morally borderline.
Works Cited
Hollinger, D. P. (2001, 11 15). Stem Cells & Our Moral Culture. Retrieved from The Center For Bioethics & Human Dignity: http://cbhd.org/content/stem-cells-our-moral-culture
Saeed, H., & Iqtedar, M. (2013, September). Stem Cell Function and Maintenance- Ends that Matter: Role of Telomeres and Telomerase. Department of Bio-Technology & Microbiology, Lahore College for Woman University, 38(3), 641-649.
Smith, W. J. (2011, December). Building a Bridge Over Troubled Stem Cell Waters. Center for Bioethics and Culture, 11(12), 6-9.
Steinbock, B. (2007). The Science, Policy, and Ethics of Stem Cell Research. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 14(1), 130-136.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
Embryonic stem cells research has challenged the moral ethics within human beings simply because the point at which one is considered a “human,” is still under debate and practically incapable to make a decision upon.
" An Overview of Stem Cell Research | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity."
One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of development? While many argue that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential of developing cures for a number of illnesses that affect many individuals, such research is performed at the cost of destroying a life and should therefore not be pursued.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
Reaves, J. (2001, July 11). The great debate over stem cell research. Time, Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,167245,00.html
Monroe, Kristen, et al., eds. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical and Political Issues. Los Angeles/Berkley: University of California Press, 2008. Print
Singer first points out that the different opinions on abortion come from the debate on when a human life actually begins. He formulates the common argument against abortion as follows: it is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a human fetus is an innocent human being; therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. It is because killing a human being is undoubtedly wrong and immoral that the opposition instead attempts to deny the second part of the argument “a human fetus is an innocent human being”. By doing so, critics argue that the fetus does not have the status of a human being. This debate results in focusing on whether, or when, the fetus can be considered a human being, and therefore given the same rights against being killed as another human being. Singer however claims that it is difficult to find a moral dividing line between a fetus and a human being because the development of the human egg to a child is gradual. To prove his point, he describes four commonly proposed moral lines (birth, viability, quickening, and consciousness), which he then denies with strong arguments.
Due to public awareness of science, people started realise that the stem cells have the potential in developing cell-based therapies for many uncured diseases. Objectors claimed that it is morally wrong for the government to advocate stem cell research because the research demands embryos’ destruction (National Bioethics Advisory Committee [NBAC], 1999, as cited in Nisbet, 2004).’’It’s immoral that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded yearly instead of used to research cures for human suffering.” (Gilbert, 2008).In 2001, President George W. Bush made his stand to oppose the stem cell research by l...
Tümpel, S., & Rudolph, K. (2012). The role of telomere shortening in somatic stem cells and tissue aging: lessons from telomerase model systems. Annals Of The New York Academy Of Sciences,1266(1), 28-39. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06547.x
Waskey, Andrew J. “Moral Status of Embryo.” Encyclopedia of Stem Cell Research. Ed. Clive N. Svendsen, and Allison D. Ebert. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2008. 347-52. SAGE knowledge. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the hands of the pregnant woman alone, no different from a tumor she might have. By proving this, the abortion debate then becomes an issue of women?s rights, something that is most controversial indeed. Furthermore, it is fair to question the credibility of many people against abortion because of obvious contradictions in the logic of their belief systems. The fact that this debate is relevant in modern society is ludicrous since there is a simple and plausible solution to this problem that could potentially end the debate for good, leaving both sides satisfied.
This report will outline the ethics of conceiving a child for the purpose of using cells, tissues or even organs to treat an existing child with a fatal disease. In outlining the ethics of saviour siblings, the question of whether it is ethical to conceive a child for the purpose of becoming a saviour will be explored.
Anderson, Ryan. "Stem Cells: A Political History." First Things. First Things, November, 2008. Web. 10 Feb 2012.