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.
There are limits and using embryonic stem cells for research purposes requires the destruction of the human embryo, and putting an end to potential human life crosses the line. Life starts at conception, and all life started with these living cells. Another reason relevant to the lack of consensus is the ... ... middle of paper ... ... to cure, we can achieve the same goal of freeing people from cancer, and other diseases in an ethical, morally sound procedure by using adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells for research. I am informed of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, and your recent addition of opening up federal funding for stem cell research, and acknowledge that embryos cannot be lawfully destroyed and the use of embryonic stem cell lines from prior to 2009. I propose to stop federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and research with the use of adult stem cells should be federally funded and furthered.
Embryonic stem cell research is so controversial because society is judging whether or not taking stem cells from days old embryos is immoral, or if doctors should look past the cons and do what is necessary to eventually preserve many lives. While stem cell research has received an abundance of support from people who believe it has the potential to treat and remedy disease, many others oppose embryonic stem cell research because it ultimately causes the destruction of an embryo, what they consider to be a human life. Which brings on the question, when does life begin. The answer is opinionated. Many people disagree on when life begins; some people believe that an embryo is a human and some believe that they are not human until the first heartbeat.
Embryonic stem cells work to help cure diseases because of the fact that they can turn into any cell type the body needs. Scientists can manipulate embryonic stem cells into the cells that their patients need. The major questions regarding stem cell research are is it morally permissible to destroy an embryo in search of cures of diseases? Those who are against embryonic stem cell research would argue that stem cell research destroys a potential human life. On the other hand, those who are for stem cell research would argue that genetic tests and stem cell research can help detect and find cures for diseases that as of right now have no cures.
Human right activists and some religious groups are against this type of research because the harvesting of stem cells from embryos is seen as the destruction of human life. These activists believe using human tissue as a starting point for new cell development is unnatural; killing one person to help another (author). Nevertheless, it is an unconventional and controversial type of medicine that could prove to be groundbreaking. With the proliferation of disease such as cancer in our society, stem cell research must be furthered implored in order to cure diseases and save countless lives despite the ethical controversy it has created. Stem cells are cells that have not differentiated to form specialized tissues, and can be found in the blastocyst during the embryological growth, as well as in the bone marrow of adult tissues.
The Senate is considering a proposal to outlaw human cloning. Two alternative proposals would ban only "reproductive cloning," which would mean explicitly legalizing human cloning but not the implantation of a clone embryo into a womb. Pro-cloners are willing for the most part to outlaw reproductive cloning because it isn't safe, but they oppose a ban on cloning for research and experimentation--known as "therapeutic cloning"--arguing that such a cloning license is necessary to the development of future medical treatments for human ailments. This opposition to a ban on human therapeutic cloning is misinformed. The case against cloning, including therapeutic cloning, has mainly been argued on grounds of morality.
Admittedly, embryos often get discard or being store in freezer; many believe that instead they should be used for medical research, but human are not just mere materials for medical research after they died. In another word, embryonic stem cells researches from aborted babies are out of question. To summarize these embryonic stem cells can cure many diseases, but for that to happen the embryo will be destroyed. Even though there are some still believed in embryonic stem cells, stem cells researcher must not be allowed to use stem cells from aborted babies to cure diseases because it is against religious philosophy, embryonic stem cells are not effective compare to adult stem cells, and stem cells can be obtain from other part of the body without harming in donors and had already cured diseases such as blood and immune disorders.
That provision forbids funding "research in which" human embryos (whether initially created for research purposes or not) are harmed or destroyed outside the womb. (1) National Institutes of Health guidelines approved by the Clinton Administration nonetheless give researchers detailed instructions on how to obtain human embryos for destructive cell harvesting, if they wish to qualify for federal grants in "human pluripotent stem cell research. "(2) Clearly, obtaining and destroying embryos is an integral part of this project, even if the specific act of destroying embryos does not directly receive federal funds. By i... ... middle of paper ... ...uman Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID)-X1 Disease," 288 Science 669-72 (28 April 2000). 16.
Stem Cell Research This research paper will focus on stem cell research and the ethical issues that are attributed to this subject. This topic will be narrowed down to Embryonic Stem Cell research in that there is a great debate going on how to conduct this research ethically. The importance of embryo stem cell research is that the research could help save lives and also the debate is that it is morally wrong to kill an embryo due to the fact it still a living organism. The issue with embryo stem cell research is that an embryo is a living being and should not be used for research, because then the embryo would not be allowed to develop into the living form it is meant to be. This issue is being debated in the government and other political aspects as to whether the research should be done.
Richard J. Gross a developmental biologist once said, “If there were no regeneration, there could be no life. If everything regenerated there would be no death.” In 2001 President George W. Bush banned the further funding of embryonic stem cell research. Why? Some feel that embryonic stem cell research encouraged abortion, and that by banning the federal funding for embryonic stem cell research it would lessen the rates of abortion.