Ethical Justification Of Moderate Hesc Policy

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

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

The studying of stem cells is a very controversial issue that has been around since 1998 when the research of the use of embryonic stem cell treatment began. The main issues surrounding the discussion of treating people with life-altering disabilities through the use of these pluripotent cells is the ethicality of the matter and whether or not it is a savage act against a fetus. Many who oppose the use of these stem cells derived from excess embryos use the formerly stated opinion to support their argument, while those who are pro research argue that the destroying of one life could save another. The core complications that arise in studying stem cells lies in many Christian-like ethics and morals, otherwise called Christian bioethics. These are rooted in the modern day controversies arising due to advancements made in biology and medicine, mixed with religious views that argue against it. The conflicting interests of the polar opposites which are scientists and those with religious views have caused many complications along the way to discovering new treatments and cures for diseased cells. This bumpy road which has refrained scientists from making tremendous breakthroughs must smooth itself out, and the only way possible is through coming to an agreement that certain stem cell research should be practiced, such as the IPSC and adult stem cells, and others like the

Human embryonic stem cell research has been a hot debate for many years and with good reason. Many people believe that by performing this type of research we are violating the right to human life. In his article, Jim Eckman makes a compelling argument, but fails to really make any convincing arguments about why the negatives outweigh the medical benefits that stem cell research possesses and so for that I disagree with him.

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

“Embryonic stem cell research will prolong life, improve life, and give hope for life to millions of people,” said politician Jim Ramstad. This is a very powerful statement, and a very accurate statement. The solution to curing many diseases is just around the corner because of the advancements in embryonic stem cell research. The much needed support of society can speed up the progression of this research so lives can start to be saved. Embryonic stem cell research should be pursued because it has the potential to help or even cure many diseases, shows more promise than adult stem cells, and is morally ethical.

While few can debate the potential “miracle cure” aspect that seems to be wrapped within stem cell research, the method for obtaining such cells has been a topic for debate. The process of extracting pluripotent cells destroys their host embryo, and as yet, no pluripotent cells have been found in older adult tissues. Opponents of research on embryonic cells claim that embryos – from the moment that fertilization occurs – are sentient human beings and should therefore be afforded the same protections against abuse as anyone else (“The Cases For”). But what if a method were readily available were viable stem cells could be extracted from an embryo in a manner that would not deny life – however such life were defined – to the unborn fetus? What if such a potential solution could ease the minds of not only those who oppose stem cell research but also help to quell the dispute of another “Do Not Kill” issue – abortion?

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,

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.

Although there are many benefits to cloning and stem cell research, there is much to debate on the ethics. Many people feel that the scientific community are attempting to play “God”, while others do not see the harm if such research and experiments are used to benefit the well-being of man-kind. I will attempt to draw a conclusion on the ethics of stem cell research with this essay. Are cloning and stem cell research ethical?

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,

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

Thus, cloning is when an embryo is inserted into a woman for gestation. While cloning and stem cell might bring about some good, I also believe science should not cross the line of embryonic and stem cell research due to the moral status of the human embryo. As a person of faith, there’s no simple answer as to whether a human embryo should be granted the status of a person. To me, science is trying to play God and that is crossing the line. Therefore, there should be restrictive policy in place to prohibit or curb reproductive cloning, research, and embryo manipulation. We are obligated as human beings to do good “beneficence” and “nonmaleficence” to do no harm. Stem cell research appease to be doing more good than

The opponents of embryonic stem cells stick to the belief that destroying one human’s life to save and cure others is not worth it because it makes you wonder, where will the line be drawn? Can the killing and experimentation of homeless people, for example, be justified by the possibility of saving a few Alzheimer’s patients’ lives? Will the world allow the destruction of the elderly just to save the younger generation? The opponents of embryonic stem cells realize that if the world begins using embryonic stem cells to make everyone healthier, than there is no telling what the world is willing to sacrifice in order for them to survive and if the world does go down that path, who gets to decide who deserves to live or die? (“Using Embryos is Immoral”). The destructive view that the world has towards embryonic stem cells is made evident not only by the ongoing debate about whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used but also by the restriction placed on embryonic

When discussing stem cell research, particularly on embryonic stem cells, there are two moral principles that must be taken into consideration: the moral responsibility to prevent and alleviate suffering or the moral responsibility to respect the value of human life. However, it is impossible to respect both moral principles as one invalidates the