I have complete understanding of embryonic stem cell research, and its potential to end human suffering, however it is unethical to do so. First and foremost, embryonic stem cells have the potential for life. Using stem cells for research shows a lack of consensus regarding the meaning, bonds, and sense of life. Knowing we can does not mean we should. 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.
The ethical question on why stem cells are controversial is “Is using stem cells from embryos right?” However, the question when politicians are included changes to “How can we fund research to killing potential people for their stem cells?” The definition of an embryo is altered from court case to court case to fit the need of the problem, making it more difficult to differentiate a fertilized egg from a person and halting progress to the stem cell industry. Taking into consideration the possible positive outcomes versus the sacrifice of an embryo is indeed debatable, but given a chance could have a clear answer to those ethical questions. Deciding what side of the ethical spectrum to fall under is complicated, but we ought to allow embryonic stem cell research for the sake of survival. Deciding if it is right to use embryonic stem cells means we should understand the process of obtaining them and where they are taken from. A stem cell is an unspecialized cell that our body produces to make all of our specialized cells.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Some of the most prominent advocates of the research are scientists and patients who believe that embryonic stem cell research will lead to the development of treatments and cures for some of humanity’s most pernicious afflictions (such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and diabetes).”(The center for bioethics & human dignity, n.d.). Among the most vocal opponents of the research are those who share the desire to heal, but who object to the pursuit of healing via unethical means. CBHD’s view is that because human embryonic stem cell research necessitates the destruction of human embryos, such research is unethical regardless of its alleged benefits. Ethical alternatives for achieving those benefits should be actively pursued. What are human embryonic stem cells and how are they obtained?
The future of revolutionizing medical treatment and it’s potentials are vast espially in finding ways to genetically modify people that may (deem) impossible, while possibly treating diseases such as Alzymers, Perkysings, heart and lung diseases, and the list expands. So why the controversy of its predictated affects, revolutionsary and astonishing? The bikker controversy to its revolutionary impacts are mainly instigated by the “pro-life” organization who argue that it is not worth losing innocent life, or in this case find it unscrupulous to kill innocent embroys who have yet to experience the blessings of life. Using the tissue lining of... ... middle of paper ... ... However, the main issue still stands whether the killing of an embryo is a necessity in order to obtain stem cells.
The Great Human Embryo Clone Hype Abstract: The cloning of human embryos has sparked a major debate worldwide. New cloning methods have surpassed the technology that could only duplicate specified genes or produce offspring from frozen mice and human embryos. Cloning has been used to free would-be sufferers from a particular disease carrying gene. Likewise, out of desire to assist infertile couples and overcome the drawbacks of using in-vitro fertilization, came the newest method of cloning. Although skepticism exists because of the lack of regulation and the extreme possibilities considered such as cloning for hair and eye color or for a particular gender, with proper regulation, researchers and doctors intend to embrace this modern and unpredictable technology as our newest weapon in combating health related problems.
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.