Arguments Against Parthenogenic Embryo Research

Imagine a world free from disease. The idea of a utopian society has been far from reality until the research from embryonic stem cell therapy surfaced. Since former president George W. Bush banned federal funding on embryonic stem cell research in 2001 it has caused a halt in advancements and caused controversy in the public. According to an article by Beau Watts, an accredited physician; embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells (Beau Watts). This means they have not decided what function they perform yet. Since the cells do not know the function, it can be determined by scientists. As described in the “Guidelines for the conduct of human embryonic research” by the international stem cell society; medical professionals can take an embryonic stem cell and “reprogram” it to eliminate the disease. Today 2,200 people died from heart disease (American heart association). Heart disease is only one of many diseases that can be cured by embryonic stem cell research. Religious and/or conservative groups now condemn the research, for multiple reasons. Embryonic stem cells are donated by patients of in-vitro fertilization. After a “round” of IVF, they can choose to donate, freeze, or discard their leftover embryos. Embryos contain two layers, it is the innermost layer that contains the cells used in embryonic stem cell research (Society for stem cell research). It is very important to know that, the embryos that could be used in the research are donated upon request of the patient.

Most people are against Embryonic Stem Cell research mainly because they consider it unethical to use aborted fetuses for research. The two main issues concerning the research are the ethics (Cons) and the benefits (Pros). In any scientific case, ethics must always be considered. But the use of fetuses is something that is of the utmost importance. The costs are generally measured based off of people’s feelings, morals, and knowledge about the subject up for debate. The use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research may have many positive outcomes that can come of it, but many negative outcomes as well; If using aborted fetuses for research can, in the near future, save lives, then it is a research that should be supported, even though some

Embryonic cells should be allowed to be used because of the medical benefits they provide. They can be used to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and even vision and hearing loss (nih.gov 2009). There is no problem using them for medical purposes and it is not immoral to use them for this reason. Embryonic cells have the potential to save lives. Therefore, the usage of embryonic cells outweighs the ethical issues.

In the article “Selecting the Perfect Baby: The Ethics of “Embryo Design,” is an article about a married couple, name Larry and June Shannon. They have a daughter, four years old, name Sally, who is diagnosed with Fanconi Anemia. Therefore, the Shannons are getting help from a research team, to find the perfect bone marrow transplant for Sally. The Shannon couple is also interested in having another child and they are aware of the risks and odds of success. However, a PGD process has to be performed and the couple must undergo an IVF procedure more than once, before the implantation is successful, to be able to produce a healthy full-term baby.

Presume a couple found out their embryo has a gene mutation that has a high success rate of causing cancer later on in the baby's life. Would you advocate the use of gene therapy in the embryo to correct the problem before the child was ever born?

We are living in a new era where technology can help women have babies in unconventional ways. Having children is a personal choice. In some people’s view, government should not be regulating when people should and should not start having a family. The ethical issue is when the parents start applying for governmental benefits after the baby is conceived via In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and born posthumously. When practicing IVF, are we violating God’s will? This paper is to discuss the views of the four candidates interviewed in relation to posthumous conception and delivery, their views on benefits/inheritance entitlement to these babies, and ethical principles and theories in

“I truly believe that stem cell research is going to allow our children to look at Alzheimer’s and diabetes and other major diseases the way we look at polio today, which is a preventable disease” (Solomon). Susan Solomon has founded the New York Stem Cell Foundation and has been seen as the hero for stem cell scientists around the world. Over the past couple years, stem cell research has been at its high; scientists all over the world are using these cells to try to find new ways to cure life threatening diseases. Some have used stem cells to treat patients who have been brain dead recently and these cells made the dead portion of the brain start functioning again. Also, some scientists and doctors have

Australia should not legalise the genetic modification (or GM) of human embryos. Australia should keep genetic modification of human embryos illegal because if we allow genetic modification to embryos it could lead to some babies DNA having been carefully selected to enhance their appearance, intelligence or something that is not a normal thing to have chosen. These enhancements may also be unevenly distributed among the population, leading to a society of genetic haves and have-nots. One side is to allow genetic modification to embryos and take out diseases that run in family blood lines. The other side is against the genetic modification of embryos mainly because people do not want want people who are all perfect for one thing

In the past few years’ embryonic stem cells have been used and tested a whole lot. Which begs the questions what are they? What do they do? Is the use of them ethical? Embryonic stem cells are cell that can turn into whatever kind of cell is needed these are also referred to as pluripotent stem cells these are obtained by uses unborn children. This leads into the point that the use of embryonic stem cells in organ transplants is not ethical because embryos are killed to use and test.

This following essay will discuss about how the advantages of designer babies potentially act as the enhancer that emerge the harms in the society. It is just because of this advanced benefits that introduced the disadvantages of designer babies. It is likely that there will be both moral and safety objections as there has been for in vitro fertilization, stem cell science and early gene therapy. The moral objections range from concerns about the manipulation of the germline to worries about the patenting or commercialization of the technology itself. The safety concerns, much like we saw with early recombinant DNA research include both potential dangers to the offspring of patients treated and to the

Imagine living in a world without cancer, Parkinson 's, or even diabetes. While everyone may wish this is true, people are against a way that researchers can make this possible, which would be by the use of stem cells. There is major controversy on whether or not stem cell research should be allowed, especially when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. Although many consider it to be killing a potential life form, embryonic stem cell research may eventually be acceptable to use because there is consent and a lengthy process to make sure the donor understands what their embryonic stem cells will be used for. That may be viewed as a much better

People believe researchers are killing an innocent person, Weiss mentions, “Those embryos are each smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. They have no identifying features or hints of a nervous system” (1). That goes to show that the embryo is not fully grown yet, which means researchers are not killing a human being. Instead of using embryo stem cells, the people who are against it believe that adult stem cells should be use because they are more mature, but Weiss mentions that embryo stem cells could become any type of cell throughout the body (3).

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

Scientists and researchers believe that Human Embryonic Stem Cells hold potential cures for numerous diseases in today's society, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, Hodgkin's disease, hundreds of immune system and genetic disorders, spinal cord injuries, heart disease and just about every type of cancer. In today's world there's over a million Americans who suffer from deadly diseases, not only adults but innocent children that deserve to live a healthy life. These deadly diseases can be cured or treated in a more effective way than they are treated now with the help of the human embryonic stem cells. According to the Poll on "American views on stem cell research in the wake of the death of Ronald Reagan" which was prepared for results of America, shows that a sum of 73% highly supports and somewhat support this controversial process (Results of America, 2004). Even though this topic has brought continuous political attacks and very limited funding, Human Embryonic Stem cell research has made considerable contribution to the battle against disabilities and incurable diseases. A great example of success by using human embryonic stem cells was made by Dr. Hans Keirstead in the Roman Laboratory at UC Irvine; he restored myelin insulation around damaged nerves, returning motion to partially paralyzed rats. (Journal of Neuroscience, 2005) .

Contrarily, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. In addition, leftover embryos could be given with permission and