Embryonic Stem Cell Research

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.

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.

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. For Robert P. George, member of the Presidents Council on Bioethics, in the book Stem Cell Research “The hum... ... middle of paper ... ...world is telling them to forget the tragically ill and instead bring new life into this world and also deny them of the medical treatments that could possibly save their lives. In conclusion, it seems as though the only lead in the search to save human lives is through an embryo, until another method is proven to be equivalent or better than embryonic stem cells, there is no reason why scientists should be kept from advancing science to enhance and save many lives.”the likelihood, and it is my personal belief, that you end up with something identical to that pristine human embryonic stem cell is about zero. We do not know. It’s a very interesting question, and scientists are certainly looking at that” (Landis 77).

The stake over the issue of stem cells revolves around the human life itself. Proponents of stem cells say that until an embryo has not been embedded into the uterus, it does not have a human status and therefore could be used to treat patient who already are persons. They also propose to obtain cells through IVF as opposed to abortion because abortion is attributed to a deliberate act of killing human life while the fo... ... middle of paper ... ...of optimism and bring forth a new way of life and medical abilities all around the world for the benefit of people, family, friends, and oneself. Science can be described as the pursuit of innovation, advancement and opportunity. Stem cells have offered scientists and the world a new doorway to treat diseases and help millions.

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.

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. Stem cell research should be allowed on adults but not on humans. Only allowed on humans who are willing to be a part of the stem cell research but no one should be used against their own will.

While cloning is justifiable in certain circumstances, I would want to make sure other healthcare issues were taken care before donating money to research for cloning. Whether or not there would be a decision to finance further cloning research, there are clear ways in which this kind of cloning is justifiable. The first reason that the cloning of this child (who will be called Stella) is justifiable is because with the birth of the cloned child (who will be called Mia) can save Stella’s life. “Indeed, the report (from the National Advisory Commission) suggests that it would be a ‘tragedy’ to allow ‘the sick child to die because of a moral or political objection to such cloning’” (575). This statement deals with the reality of the fact that Stella’s life is at stake and that, if possible, actions should be taken to keep Stella alive.

Through advancing our knowledge in cloning and genetic engineering, we can eliminate unwanted traits and genetic diseases. Wesley may then try to argue that these unwanted traits and diseases make us unique, but I doubt he will get much support, especially from somebody who suffers from some horrible genetic disease or deformity. Wesley then uses nature itself in his arguments by stating: “Eugenics, as awful as it is, is only the beginning of the threat posed to the natural order by human cloning”.

These stem cells are extracted from extra IVF embryos; they are used and destroyed. While it’s true that this research could cure serious illnesses as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and orphan diseases for example; however, it’s also true that ending a potential life is immoral and illegal. We could definitely find an alternative to the embryonic stem cells to develop the science. An embryo is a life. Indeed, I’m not against this kind of researches because of its goals, of course finding a cure for cancer for instance would be an incredible breakthrough.

In order to get them it requires the destruction of the human embryo. This is why the United States governments have tried to restrict stem cell research. In certain presidencies they have succeeded to restrict it, making further research of stem cells more difficult. When you look at all the things stem cells can do for a human being it is pretty obvious that they are very beneficial to us. However to get a stem cell it requires the destruction of a human embryo which is the biggest issue.