Politics and Stem Cell Research
The President’s Council on Bioethics published “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” in 2004. This report was written in response to President Bush’s comments regarding research of human stem cells on August 9, 2001. President Bush announced that he was going to make federal funding available for research that involved existing lines of stem cells that came from embryos. He is the first president to provide any type of financial support for the research of human stem cells.
The editorial, ?Stem Cells and the Logic of the Nazis,? appeared in the September 3, 2000 issue of the Los Angeles Times. Even though the Los Angeles Times, a widely distributed newspaper, has a slightly liberal slant, this editorial displays a strongly conservative view on stem cell research. Thus, the author of the editorial has to be very cautious in the tone that he uses in order not to offend liberal readers. George Weigel, the author of this editorial, picks apart what he sees as the fallacious argument of Michael Kinsley, a well-known libe...
According to Nancy Reagan, “Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to alleviate so much suffering. Surely, by working together, we can harness its life-giving potential.” The increase in understanding of what is possible with stem cells, has led the topic of stem cell research to become one of the biggest social issues of our time. Over the last couple of decades, it has come down to two main types of stem cells: embryonic and those derived from adults. This is where the lines are drawn and arguments break out, because of personal morals and ethics. However, most people feel that stem cells are a great alternative to other treatments - until the topic turns to embryonic stem cells, in which a human embryo must be killed in order to harvest these cells. This means that stem cells can be one of two things: 1) stem cell research could be the miracle cure we have been waiting for, or 2) it will it be the cause of World War III.
Anderson, Ryan. "Stem Cells: A Political History." First Things. First Things, November, 2008. Web. 10 Feb 2012.
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
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.
The Wall Street Journal. “The (Political) Science of Stem Cells.” Online. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005467. August 12, 2004.
While some people might say that stem cell research is immoral and unethical, others believe that it is a magical solution for almost any problem, thus leading to a very controversial issue. Scientists have been searching for years for ways to eradicate incurable diseases and perform other medical procedures that yesterday's technology would not fix. With the rapidly arising, positive research on stem cell technology, the potential that exists to restore any deficiency is in the same way, likely to destroy humanity. America is suffering from its inability to choose who holds precedence over this issue. Too many of us find it impossible to reach a basis for which our differing opinions can be shared and formed into a universal and comprehensive understanding. Although stem cell research is portrayed as being a means, it can also be viewed as an ends for those who suffer today, and for those in the future who will be exposed to this suffering.
The Controversy of Stem Cell Research
One of the most controversial topics these days is Stem Cell Research. There seems to be a split opinion among societies about the research and whether it is socially and morally acceptable. As a society, we need to open our minds to the possibility of broadening our scientific horizons with stem cell research, and take the time to learn and understand whatever we can about it.
There are a lot of people who don't know exactly what Stem Cell Research is which contributes to why a lot of people seem so against it. Stem Cell Research can best be described as taking a stem cell, 'a primitive type of cell that can be coaxed into developing into most of the 220 types of cells found in the human body'(Robinson).
Of the many controversial issues in the United States, stem cell research stands among the top. People either think the destruction of human embryos is necessary to save the lives of others, or they think “the ends don’t justify the means”. Both sides have valid arguments, but when considering the future possibilities that can derive from embryonic stem cell research, the solution is clear. Stem cell research should definitely be practiced along with a strong emphasis on embryonic stem cell research. In order for any of this to happen, the United States government must fund the research. The funding of embryonic stem cells will allow for technologies to be improved to the point where eventually the destruction of embryos will no longer be required.