Should We Interfere With The Natural Process?

152) required their reproduction and choosing to be childless was “non-normative” (p. 152). One participant believed that choosing to remain childless would be more readily accepted by those that did not intimately know him and viewed more negatively by those closest to him (p. 151). I feel this is a very apt assessment of society’s views on childlessness; it is easy to justify the projection of one’s personal beliefs onto someone that we closely know as opposed to a stranger. However, I also believe it depends on the projecting person’s ideas about social norms. I know several single and married couples that have decided to either delay childbearing or refrain altogether and I find no fault in their decision. I do not necessarily believe that it is imperative a person and/or couple have children. Nevertheless, I believe the subject belongs in the “Spouses-Only Area” (Hammond, Cheney, & Pearsey, 2015), and is not one I should pass judgment on. People should be allowed to make a decision that best suits them and not judged or pressured to fit some preconceived mold or

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.

A human embryo is an organism at its first stage of human development. At this point it is controversial issue when it comes to making a decision if it is alive or not. Conscious [http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/embryo]. Until a desition can be made in the meantime scientific experimentation will still continue. As Rebecca Skloot says in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, “They put cells in culter dishes and expose them to radiation, drugs, cosmetics, viruses, household chemicals, and biological weapons, and the study their respnses” (pg 316). In the same way, Humand ebryos are also being expimented in such a way to deveoled a better understanding of diseases, cancer, and the development of modern

By taking the stem cells from the embryos we’re stopping a human to develop, which means we kill it. This is against human rights and is also against God. most likely the human that is in need of the treatment has already lived while the embryo has not. Why not give a chance to a new human to be able to live? abortion cannot be permitted or projected to people as a good act. By letting these treatments take place we are promoting abortion. We can't let abortion be seen as a medical treatment, abortion is

Eckman claims that instead of helping, stem cell research kills and destroys human life. However, at the stage that these embryos are at, they are not considered to be a human life. They are unable to survive on their own until they are implanted into the uterus so they are only considered to be a part of another human being. If we choose to use them for research opportunities we are not in any way harming them because they have no desires, thoughts, or emotions. These properties are all things that we associate with being a human so if these embryos do not have any of those, they are not considered to be humans yet. In fact, many fertilized eggs are lost because of natural causes with no further implications, so using embryos for research purposes should be looked at

There are people who disagree on the morality of using human embryonic cells, and stem cell research in general, nonetheless. Some stubborn pro-life organizations insist that the destruction of the “blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg” (White), is on the same level as murdering a human child and is entirely immoral and unacceptable. Even if these embryonic cells are being used to save lives and cure diseases, they believe it is wrong because the cells were taken at the cost of a

As stated earlier, Christians must evaluate the different methods of medical technology in order to identify the moral and ethical ramifications of certain medical procedures. I believe that any procedure that forces a couple to decide what is to be done with “leftover” embryos should not be used. However, there are some procedures such as IUI and IVF that utilize

embryo does not justify the means. On the other side of the debate are many scientists and

Embryonic harvesting and freezing is considered an ethical dilemma and morally unacceptable. Karen Capato reserved sperm for in-vitro fertilization posthumous and reared twins as a result. In this instance, technology was used after the death of a spouse to create life posthumous and the use of such is considered an act of God. “The Bible mentions in its parables that we should not to disrupt a life” (E. Horning, personal communication, January 31, 2013). Manipulating genetics

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 &

Claims that may be criticized. Although I do fully agree with Manninen when she states that embryos are human, but they are simply in a different developmental stage than the rest of us, I feel that the potential for cognitive abilities and intellect may also be argued. Who’s to say this embryo may or may not want to donate tissues or organs when they are older? For this reason it can be confusing to prohibit the use of embryos on these

There are many reasons for this thinking including the facts that, it may not be adequately controlled,the potential misuse of technology and even the possible misuse of the power.

The primary argument against this new form of research is that scientists are growing live human beings in a lab. Some argue that because the child is growing in a petri dish and not a womb, it is no longer human. They argue that birth is a key part in the formation of a person, and since the children being grown are never birthed, they are no longer a human. Moreover, some religious protestors claim that the babies grown will never have a soul because ensoulment occurs in the womb. They are unable to say what will happen to a child without a soul, but argue that the children will never have a chance to go to heaven. “Young human beings, especially in their unique vulnerability during early stages of development, are ‘ends’ in themselves, entitled to unconditional respect and protection, not ‘means’ to be utilized to achieve other goals, even when those goals may be lofty and high-minded,” says Father Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (PBS) This the Church’s extreme disapproval of this research. Furthermore, some opposers claim that once the embryo becomes an “individual,” it is murder to destroy it, yet it is also unethical to continue growing it. Therefore, regulations must be kept where they currently are, if not made stricter. The only solution that satisfies all aspects of the Church’s disapproval is the halting of embryonic research. However, this is

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.

When a couple decides to try IUI with high powered ovulation drugs or IVF, most of the time they are left with embryos that have not been used. The big question that the couple must decide is what to do with the embryos. The answer to this question carries more weight than many would think, as there is an ethical and moral aspect to this decision. If a person believes that life begins at conception, which is the case, then the embryo is not only a clump of cells, but a human life waiting to mature. For a Christian, the answer lies within the Word of God. God declares that life begins at conception in several of the Scriptures such as Jeremiah 1:5 where the author states, “Before I