Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
For and against stem cell research
Moral arguments on stem cells
Debate over government funding of stem cell research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: For and against stem cell research
When James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin and John Gearhardt at John Hopkins University were able to culture human embryonic stem cells in a lab in 1998, they opened up an entire world of controversy now known as the stem cell debate. The importance of embryonic stem cells to modern science and medicine rests largely on the fact that they are pluripotent. This means that they have the ability to form into any cell necessary within the body; they can be encouraged to become skin cells, brain cells, etc. Organs could be grown in a lab and transplanted into patients, and these cells could be used to test new drugs, rather than a live human subject. This technology, according to scientists, could foster the ability to cure any disease, illness, or injury, but at what cost? Opponents of stem cell research believe that the practice of embryonic study and culture is immoral, while proponents suggest that this technology is necessary for the advancement of medical research.
In 2001, then President George W. Bush quickly sided with those believing the research to be immoral. During his primetime address, he advocated only to allow research on cell lines already in existence. Much of this side of the argument is based on the idea that human eggs are fertilized with sperm to create an embryo, and then destroyed to harvest the stem cells within the blastocyst. Many religious and pro-life groups – including, the Catholic Church, Christian Medical Association, Family Bioethics Counsel, etc. – believe that life begins at conception, and feel that this involves the destruction of human life. They consider it equal to abortion, which they also oppose.
A few years after this controversy emerged, in 2006, two bills were passed th...
... middle of paper ...
...ther group acknowledges the morality of purposefully fertilizing eggs in order to study and destroy them. This belief was solidified when S.3504 was passed by a unanimous vote of acceptance in the Senate.
There are many pieces of the stem cell puzzle that have yet to be navigated. Are we being too hasty by pushing embryonic research over that of adult stem cells? Is it ethical to kill a being classified in biological terms as a life form for the potential advancement of science? Is an embryo even worthy of rights if it can’t think, feel, or communicate? Or do the positives of embryonic stem cell research so far outweigh the negatives that the sacrifice is minimal? Adversaries of embryonic research explain that it is absolutely unethical, while supporters argue that this research is essential to our medical future. There may never be one right answer.
Stem cell research has always been a widely debated topic in 'social and political forums' ever since the case of Roe vs. Wade in 1973. In that case the Supreme Court gave women the right to have an abortion whether or not they have a medical reason to. Whereas beforehand 'they needed a medical reason'. This "sparked controversy" over stem cell research with aborted fetuses. For many of those in favor of using fetal tissue for research it has too much "potential" in the future of medicine in terms of providing cures for diseases and "". Those against fetal tissue research believe it unethical to take one human life in order to preserve another.
For the past few years stem cell research has been a widely debated topic; however, former President Clinton?s stance?allowing federal money to be spent on tightly controlled stem cell research?lead to intense debates over federal funding for stem cell research. There are four ways of obtaining stem cells, which are taken from embryos that are approximately one week old. They are using unwanted embryos from fertility clinics, embryos from aborted fetuses, cloned embryos, and embryos created for research purposes. Stem cells can also be taken out of adult bone marrow, but scientists do not think that adult stem cells hold as much medical potential. Conservatives are against federal funding for stem cell research because they feel that by doing such the government would be contributing to ?murder.? This idea is rooted in the religious beliefs, which include the belief that life begins at conception, held by conservatives. However, liberals support federal funding for the research of embryos because they question whether embryos are full human beings and believe the research could expedite potential medical breakthroughs.
Late one night a woman is driving home on the freeway, she’s hit head on by a drunk driver and killed. The man is charged with two accounts of murder; the woman, and her four-week-old embryo inside her. By law, everyone human being is guaranteed rights of life; born or unborn they are equal. The same law should be enforced concerning human embryonic stem cell research. Dr. James A. Thomson discovered stem cells in 1998 and they’ve intrigued scientist ever since. The stem cells themselves are derived from a three to four day old cluster of cells called a blastocyst and they are so coveted because they are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any type of cell in the human body. Although embryonic stem cells show amazing potential to cure various disease such as cancer, congestive heart failure, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophies, and more. The methods by which they are obtained is controversial. Research on embryonic stem cells is unethical, unnecessary, and purely homicide.
The article supports its claim that Measure Q is a badly written ordinance by discussing the use of the broad term “organism” in the measure. It includes arguments from two credible sources, San Luis Obispo attorney Robin Baggett and the Washington D.C law firm of Arent Fox. The two agree that the use of the word “organism” implies both laboratory research as well as crops, therefore both would be banned. Baggett, a l...
Because of these high standards, all embryonic cells used for research come from embryos that have been formed for in vitro fertilization. The unused embryos, which are not used for the process, are discarded unless the donor gives explicit consent for their use in stem cell research (CIRM, 2015). Some who oppose stem cell research use scripture (col. 1:16) as a basis against using products of “sin to do good”. (Which is true). This verse only holds weight if you believe that you are ending a life five days after fertilization. I tend to side with Dr. Peter Kraus in this matter. He believes this early in the developmental stages there is nothing for the spirit of god to enter into. You might as well be taking a sample of the placenta, or cord blood (Kraus, 2010). The process of in vitro, which is where the samples come from, is further the product of man (i.e. Scientist) introducing the sperm to the egg. True, what follows after the embryo is introduced to the womb is a gift from god. Is not also a sturdy structure, a gift from god to a carpenter, when it is god who gave him the talent to build it? Lastly, if the stance is based on the topic of what is considered murder, are we not murdering the millions that could be helped with stem cell therapy by doing nothing?
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.
The majority of Americans are advocates for the possibilities of medical advancement, thus saving thousands of lives. Those in opposition believe that it is against Stem Cell Research 3 morality to destroy embryos because they are people. Those against stem cell research also state that it leads to many deaths in the process of clinical trials and experimentation, and potentially could lead to the cloning of humans. The issue has caused much political debate due to ethics. The Dickey-Wicker amendment of 1995 forbade federal funding of human embryonic research.
While many support embryonic stem cell research, some people oppose it say that it is an unethical practice. According to these people, embryonic stem cells require murdering a baby, human life is defined by rational beings, those capable of rational thought or a consciousness. In order to be rational one must have a consciousness, the ability to have thoughts and feel pain, to begin with. “For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness” (Stem). If abortions are allowed within the United States, why shouldn’t embryonic stem cell research be? Another claim against embryonic stem cell research is that it devalues human lives. “Some argue that researching embryonic stem cells will lead us into cloning technology” (Embryonic). While embryonic cloning is a possibility, we already possess the capabilities to clone so cloning is an invalid argument. The final argument against embryonic stem cell research is that there are alternatives, like adult stem cells. While adult stem cells may be utilized, they won’t be as effective. Embryonic stem cells are not only efficient but also renewable. They can be grown in a culture where as adult stem cells are extremely rare, if there are any. They can only be found in mature tissue. Isolating these extremely rare cells is challenging and has a high failure rate if not harvested correctly. “One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become” (Stem). Using adult stem cells we might never understand our development from conception ...
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...
A unanimous decision should be made on when to consider an embryo a human being that has morality. Until then I believe that the embryo is not close to a human life unless it has made it past the fourteen day period in which it is passed the twinning stage. So with this information I come to the conclusion that under specific regulations and laws, including the ones I mentioned in the summary, the cloning of embryos for biomedical research and obtaining stem cells should be deemed acceptable.
Within the past few years, scientist have made several breakthroughs with human stem cells. These breakthroughs have catapulted the issue of stem cell research into the middle of a national debate. Most people have no problem with the research itself, however the source of the stem cells (adult or human embryos) used in research is the primary cause of the debate. Some people feel that destroying an embryo is comparable to murder, even if the research it promotes may help people with serious illnesses. Other believe that an embryo is not a person and therefore research on an embryo is the same as research on any other group of cells.
...This idea respects the adult person in the moral community, not the infant. It can be compared to the idea that it is wrong to destroy someone’s home or natural recourses. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.189).
Stem cells offer exciting promise for future therapies, but significant technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research. Stem Cells have the incredible potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans. The embryonic stem cells and the non-embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are the cells from which all other cells originate. In a human embryo, a large portion of the embryo’s cells are stem cells. These stem cells can be used for cell-based therapies. Cell-Based therapies are treatments in which stem cells are induced to differentiate into the specific cell type required to repair damaged or destroyed cells or tissues. Stem cells are versatile and offer the possibility to treat a number of diseases including Alzheimer’s, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. The problem is that for the process of embryonic stem cell research and embryo will be destroyed if used. This raises a moral issue and questions of whether stem cell research is unethical or not.
It became a major issue in 1997/1998 and continued to the 2000’s where George W. Bush joined to the problem by vetoing the first bid that was brought forward by Congress to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. Bush stated after the veto that, “would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others” and also he stated “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect”. Bush was also supported by children that he said, “began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization (in vitro means the technique of performing an experiment in a controlled environment outside of a living organism) but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete… These boys and girls are not spare parts”. Later on that year, Bush signed a bill to ban the creation of human fetuses for the sole purpose of harvesting organs. Soon after, the House proposed another bill that they had hoped him to sign to promote efforts to conduct stem cell research without destroying human embryos. Bush had called it “an important piece of legislation”, but several politics said that it would distract attention from his veto for the funding for human embryonic stem cell research.