Embryonic Wars Essay

The act of exchanging lives can be a very dangerous thing. For example, shooting an armed intruder. The debate of saving a life but taking another in the process is complicated and quite interesting. People may not see the connection at first, but that argument is linked to the ethical issue of therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is the copying of body parts or genetic material through an embryo for medical usage. It kills the unborn offspring in order to help a living human being, who is having some type of problem in their body. It can have many benefits to helping the living, but has disadvantages to the unborn. The question is which one matters the most.

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

If the government does not adequately fund research on stem cells, it makes sense that large amounts of discoveries would be made. It is in the government's best interest to represent the country as a whole, which would not be possible by taking one specific side of the ethical debate. Certainly, there are major advantages, as well as major issues, with stem cell research, but the most critical area of dispute comes with the idea of reproductive cloning through stem

Stem cells are grown on Petri dishes in a laboratory and are never implanted in a woman’s uterus. These cells can be used to create stem cell lines that can grow indefinitely under optimal conditions (“Stem cells and diseases,” 2011). Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from existing stem cell lines (any group of cells that came from the same original embryo), aborted or miscarried embryos, unused in vitro fertilized embryos, and cloned embryos created from somatic cell nuclear transfer (the nucleus from an unfertilized egg is removed and replaced with a nucleus from an adult stem cell). This technique would be used for therapeutic cloning, which could grow organs or skin grafts for patients. However, the only research that is federally funded are a few embryonic stem cell lines created from unused embryos at in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics before 2001 (Dunn, 2005; “Embryonic & fetal research laws,” 2008; Therapeutic cloning, 2009). These lines are not enough to allow scientists to fully explore and take advantage of potential findings.

Until two scientists isolated the first embryonic stem cells in 1981 (stemcell.child), the controversy in embryonic stem cell research was never discussed. For, an embryo was never able to survive outside of the womb until then; however, today, this topic is widely discussed among ethicists, medical professions, politicians, and more for several reasons. On one side of the argument, embryonic stem cells have the capability of repairing damaged tissue, and with further research it is believed that these cells will be able to cure or provide relief to several diseases and disabilities seen today. On the other hand, embryonic stem cell research is seen as morally unjust because it is seen as the destruction of a potential human life

We live in a world where genetic sciences have gone beyond laws, and past the imagination. We have come to a point where we don’t know anymore what is right, and what is wrong. We have to decide. In fact, studies are made on embryonic stem cells that for now have the purpose to better our overall health. 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.

Across America, doctors in the field of abortion perform perfectly legal and constitutionally protected procedures everyday that result in the removal of unwanted fertilized embryos from a woman. For years these fetuses were terminated and discarded in a safe manner, with no further study or research done on the unborn child. Now, scientists have begun harvesting key cells from the fetuses before they are

Zubin Master and G. Crozier in “ The Ethics Of Moral Compromise For Stem Cell Research Policy” try to explain, and inform anyone that is interested in knowing more about the stem cell research, and the ethics involved in that subject. The main idea of this Journal Article is to analyze some of the scientific proposals of using stem cells, and which methods are more ethically corrects for the research. In the article, Zubin and Crozier talk about new techniques that can derive stem cells without having to destroy embryos. One of those techniques are to “use a non-human animal source of ova or ova created from the differentiation of human embryonic stem cells”(53), so the researchers can keep doing experiments without having to use humans embryos,

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.

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

“In cloning, the nucleus of an ordinary cell, such as skin or muscle, is placed in an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. It is stimulated in the hope that the cell can then be reprogrammed and develop into an embryo, from which stem cells (which can turn themselves into any sort of cell) can be removed. Because the egg has had its nucleus removed, critics say that all cloning involves the destruction of potential human beings. It would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another.” (Fukuyama,

Many ethical and moral dilemmas arise when discussing human cloning, and one can have many positions for and against each. To understand the issues surrounding human cloning, one must have a basic

Recent developments highlight a point made by opponents of embryonic stem cell research for years: Once our consciences are numbed to the moral wrong of using so-called "spare" human embryos for research, our society will move on to even more egregious abuses. The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Virginia has announced that it is using donated eggs and sperm to create human embryos solely to destroy them for stem cell research.( S. Stolberg, "Scientists Create Scores of Embryos to Harvest Cells," The New York Times, July 11, 2001 at A1.) Moreover, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Massachusetts has announced it is trying to make human embryos by somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) for the same purpose.

To continue the downsides of stem cell research, human cloning is yet another major controversial topic within stem cell research. When it comes to the human cloning issues, one must look at the two types of cloning. Reproductive cloning involves creating an animal that is genetically identical to a donor animal through somatic cell nuclear transfer (Hollowell). In reproductive cloning, the newly created embryo is placed back into the uterine environment where it can implant and develop. Therapeutic cloning involves the removal of a nucleus any cell of the body and transfer it by injection into an unfertilized egg. “Proponents say that reproductive cloning is a logical extension of infertility treatments, hence the intimate link to IVF procedures” (Hollowell). The biggest issue is that therapeutic cloning is closely related to reproductive cloning, but they both have different purposes. Reproductive cloning involves creating a baby, while therapeutic cloning involves creating new stem cells. However, therapeutic cloning is better equipped for stem cell research and thus it is

Human cloning has given rise to the development of embryonic stem cells, which are a necessity to living. The controversy about whether this is an ethical concept because of the amount of stem cells needed is extensive, the benefits that arise greater counteract the required resources. Without embryonic cells, humans would cease to exist because of their diverse needs. By using this technique of cloning, “cells could be made to grow into normal embryos, [and] the technique could supply fresh stocks of embryonic stem cells” (Rosen). By providing a supply of fresh embryonic stem cells, humans will have cells ready for use and can avoid many diseases. Not only will they provide extra stem cells but they may allow “once-untreatable conditions [to] be cured by replacing damaged cells with healthy ones” (Rosen). By replacing impaired stem cells, developing diseases can