Embryonic Stem Cell Research - in Vitro Fertilization

By definition, discovery implies uncertainty, but progress cannot exist without either. They are codependent upon each other. Whether the use of embryonic stem cells is truly the destruction of human life and whether the potential of human life is equal to the possible realization of that potential is also codependent. Neither of these questions can be answered without simultaneously answering the other. Arguments from both sides of this issue are extremely valid, which is why it has become such a difficult question for anyone with consideration of the opinions of others to answer. That being said, a rational stance on this issue must incorporate views from both sides, as well as logic to keep from becoming indifferent. A moderate policy should be adopted by the United States, one that allows the funding of research on spare embryos from IVF as opposed to their disposal, and one that allows for the use of Nuclear Transfer for the purpose of therapeutic cloning as long as the eggs are obtained from willing donors, though a policy that does not permit the production of human embryos strictly for research besides in the context of therapeutic cloning. This policy can be justified through the logic of Kantian Ethics, John Harris’s, “Stem Cells, Sex, and Procreation,” John P. Lizza’s, “Potentiality and Human Embryos,” and a public opinion expressed by Ian Wilmut.

This report describes how ethics involving embryos has been ongoing for 25 years but has significantly increased with the stem cell controversy. Another issue brought up by this report is whether or not federal funds should be spent on an issue that is so ethically

Nelson & Meyer discusses coming to a compromise on the disposal of the extracorporeal human embryos (EHEs). One should not link the extracorporeal human embryos to the possibility of developing into a real human. As long as the human embryo is outside of the human body, it does not have the potential to develop into a child. Religion can affect a persons’ beliefs and morals to the point where compromise is not possible. It is agreed that disposal should be done respectfully but where and how is the question. Nelson &

When an embryo should be considered an actual human has a variety of answers, “some have sought to reject that the early human embryo is a human being, according to one view, the cells that comprise the early embryo are a bundle of homogeneous cells that exist in the same membrane but do not form a human organism because the cells do not function in a coordinated way to regulate and preserve a single life”.(Siegel)

In short, the debate boils down to the ancient debate of whether or not a fetus or human embryo is a life or not. Pro-life advocates say that human fetuses are absolutely,

While there are many theories of the benefits we could gain by using embryonic stem cells, it has brought many ethical dilemmas and arguments. Many feel that the use of embryos for science is morally wrong and equal killing an unborn baby. This is usually followed by the idea that we shouldn’t “play god” nor allow embryos to be used for research. On the other hand,

What do the statues of the embryo and the ethical principle of life have to do with the research of embryonic stem cells? Well, in order to perform a research, a new line of stem cells has to be developed. When the cells are extracted from the blastocyst, the embryo is destroyed since it cannot persist without its inner cells. If the embryo is considered a person, we are then killing a person, as well as violating the ethical principle of respecting the value of life.

Patrick Guinan says that the ethical view of embryonic stem cell research needs to be questioned because it kills off something that has the ability to be a human being (Williams). Some people may think that but Catherine Waldby says that the embryo as just an “idea of human life” (Lauritzen) and finds no destructive behavior used in stem cell research. Even though the issue over stem cell research goes on, sixty-seven percent of Americans say they support the use of embryonic stem cell research (Hall).

The argument of an embryo being considered human is one of key points in the ethical debates about embryonic research. The issue, which has profound implications for medical breakthroughs, has

Many women are eager to become a mother, but infertility prevents some women from satisfying this need. To counter this widespread problem, we develop reproductive choices. One of the most important choices is in vitro fertilization. Even though this method significantly increases pregnancy rate in infertile women, it comes with the problem. Underlying in vitro fertilization is research on living human embryos. We need to research on countless living embryos in order to develop clinical in vitro fertilization. This stirs public attention on its morality. Society asks: Are we killing thousands of human life while we are developing method to give birth to other ones? This question is crucial because it is asking very foundation of our

Embryonic stem cells research has challenged the moral ethics within human beings simply because the point at which one is considered a “human,” is still under debate and practically incapable to make a decision upon.

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.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) and In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) has been under fire for quite some time and has be questioned by religious, scientific, and political leaders as to what is right or wrong and what is for or against mankind and their beliefs as scientist and religious followers (Lawton, 2001). I read from different several religious views on the subject Christians, Lutherans, and Judaism, are just a few that hold a strong disbelief and are not for stem cell research for they believe that life begins at conception, and a human has begun (Lyon, 2006). The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention are also opposed, for the same reason. Human embryos, says the SBC, are the tiniest of human beings. They believe that it is “immoral,

Embryonic stem cell research is a highly controversial topic in today's society, this kind of stem cell commits to regenerate any type of tissue. Unfortunately, Embryonic Stem Cell Research has a dark side. To obtain these cells will kill the embryo automatically. In other words, the acquirement of the Human Embryonic Stem Cell includes performing an abortion. To obtain these cells, it would kill the embryo. This has created controversy since abortion is such a divisive topic. Politicians are uneasy to take sides. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell issue is today's Pandora's Box due to all the unwittingly chaos that it can bring to our lives. By having this new option available in the medical world,

associated with the use of advanced assisted reproductive technology (Teays&Purdy, 2001, Bioethics,Justice,&Health Care,p.648).Currently, the number of in vitro fertilization procedures that can be performed by 100 heath-care workers is about 1,000 per year. Any implication of medical and laboratory procedures that could improve results would decrease the number of healthcare workers needed and ultimately lower the cost per procedure (Teays&Purdy, 2001, Bioethics,Justice,&Health Care,p648).