Stem Cell Research And Vitro Fertilization

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

Embryonic stem cell research is a controversial topic nationwide, because of its clash of ethical and moral values. Many people, including those suffering from diseases that this research is seeking to cure, do not believe in killing a living embryo in order to advance research and science.

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

Stem cell research is currently being conducted in numerous countries around the world. There are two main types of stem cells currently in use for research, adult and embryonic. This report will discuss the theological aspects of embryonic stem cell research in the United States. As the name implies an embryonic stem cell is harvested from a human embryo. Embryonic stem cells are obtained in two separate ways. One way is to use discarded embryos from in vitro fertilization, where fertilized eggs are donated for research. The second way is when embryos are created specifically for stem cell research. As a Christian it is my view that obtaining stem cells for research from discarded embryos should be encouraged and continue, whereas

Unfortunately, embryonic stem cell research involves extracting stem cells from embryos, thus killing them in the process. According to Stanford.edu, “Opponents of HESC [Human Embryonic Stem Cell] research argue that the research is morally impermissible because it involves the unjust killing of innocent human beings.” Yes, these embryos are dying from the extraction of their stem cells, but the fact of whether or not this is killing innocent human beings solely depends on point of view. If you consider a five-day old embryo to be a human being, then perhaps you would consider this to be wrong, but you believe otherwise, then maybe you would agree with the sacrificing of these embryos for beneficial research. This is how embryonic stem cell research has been very controversial in prior years and even

Society tends to only focus on the black and white when it comes to controversial issues and forgets about the gray area that is almost always there. Embryonic stem cell research and treatment is no exception to this phenomenon. Kristina Hug writes about what she believes to be the four arguments for the ethical dilemmas surrounding stem cell research in her article titled “Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Dilemma”. Like the authors of the previous article mentioned said, Hug agrees that the two moral principles that stem cell research forces us to choose between are the duty to respect the embryo versus the duty to protect the sick. However, they offer other views along the spectrum and reasons why people are for and against each viewpoint. The first viewpoint provided states that “the embryo has full moral status from fertilization onwards”. It says the criteria for ‘personhood’ is notoriously unclear and different people define what makes a person a person in different ways. Ones who agree with this statement argue that development from an embryo into a baby is an ongoing process and it is impossible to pinpoint when exactly personhood begins. They also argue that an embryo is simply a person in the embryonic stage and although it does not currently have the characteristics of a person, they will eventually become a person and should be given the same rights and respect people receive. The second viewpoint states that “there is a cut-off point at fourteen days after fertilization”. The source says that some people argue that a human embryo deserves special protection from around day fourteen after fertilization. A reason why people argue that point is that fertilization is a process, not a ‘moment’ and an embryo in the earliest stages is not yet clearly defined as an individual. The third viewpoint in this

I think that my religious beliefs has helped to form this idea that embryonic stem cell research is unethical and immoral. My position on this topic will never change because someday I may be a parent, an aunt, or even a grandmother, I cannot begin to imagine losing a relative or child due to research. Will it eventually help society and create cures we otherwise would not have? Yes; however, killing unborn, defenseless babies is something that I will never agree with. Embryonic stem cell research, while it has its benefits, is immoral and unethical to do in today’s time. This major issue in today’s society, does not force us to make a choice between science and ethics or science and religion. Rather it gives us a choice as to how we go forward in scientific and medical progress (Embryonic Stem

The first point brought up is that you have to kill the embryo to harvest the cells. This is essentially killing a human being to benefit others. Another issue stems from this; using an evil means to secure a good outcome. Even though an embryo is killed, good is created from it. Many people could be saved from the possible cures created. This is, however, similar to when German doctors studied the brains of murdered Jews. They were convicted at the Nuremberg trials even though they were working for the “common good.” Today all results the Germans found are refused to be published because of the circumstances they were found in. Another reason that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong is that the rationale used to say that an embryo is not considered a person “strips all human beings, born and unborn, of inherent dignity.” Embryos are not considered people but deserve “profound respect.” In this case, right and wrong it determined solely because of an act. Actions are considered moral if they increase benefits and decrease pain for the greatest number of people. If this is the case then what if killing a child in the Roman Coliseum helps 50,000 sadists permanently overcome depression at the expense of only one person experiencing pain? Does that make it

The ethical issues of stem cell research are closely tied to their social issues. Embryonic stem cell research causes many social dilemmas and raises the long-debated question of when life conception starts. To many, life conception starts immediately after fertilization, supporting the idea that the embryo is the equivalent of a human life. As a result, pro-life supporters and religious groups view ESC research as the equivalent of murder. On the contrary, some do not believe that embryos possess the same moral status as a living person. Supporters also argue that the blastula, where ESCs are derived from, are already commonly created and destroyed by fertility clinics. Therefore, instead of destroying surplus blastula, they could be put into better use in ESC labs, which could lead to more treatments. While ESCs hold a tremendous potential for advancements in human health, people still wonder if the benefits outweigh the costs. People have the duty of respecting human life, however to many, ESC research violates this principle, since it results in the destruction of a human embryo. Meanwhile, people also feel the moral responsibility of helping

An annual Gallup poll taken in 2011, reported that 62 percent of Americans said that stem cell research was moral (EU Blocks Embryonic Stem Cell Patents, Dark Ages Continue). This increased from the 52 percent who said that research was moral in 2002. These stats show that the majority of people agree with stem cell research and that number is slowly rising. Even Barack Obama, arguably one of our greatest presidents, believes that scientists should be able to use embryonic stem cells. In Furthermore, a 2010 poll found that the majority of those opposing stem cell research are born-again Christians, who make up a small part of the population (in text cite). The lives of those suffering, and those to potentially suffer should not be denied access to a possible cure or treatment that possibly save their lives.

A great deal of Americans believe that it is morally reprehensible to destroy an embryo for research purposes, as well as create embryos specifically for research, which can almost seem like “playing God.” Many people also base their distaste for hESC experimentation on their religious convictions, such as the Christian belief that life begins at conception. Both beliefs make sense and should be acknowledged when considering if the government should have a hand in funding stem cell research. However, while religious values and morals are valid beliefs that are essential for humanity to function, sometimes they get in the way of real progress and should not be the only factor considered. Furthermore, it can be argued that using “spare” embryos from in-vitro fertilization is even more humane. Supporters of hESC experimentation argue that it would be for the best if the embryos had the chance do everything in their power to help “alleviate human suffering” (Bothwell 165). Additionally, some argue that that federally funding hESC research is unecessary due to one simple fact: the stem cell industry is already largely run on private donations and state funding. While private and state donations have certainly helped usher in groundbreaking discoveries, the resources of the federal government vastly dwarfs the resources of the states; one can only imagine the possibility of future

What kind of research sparks a battle between religious-ethics, political, and scientific theories and beliefs? What makes you question right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad? The answer is stem cell research. So what is a stem cell? “Stem cells… are in effect, a human self-repair kit.” (Christopher Reeve, activist Larry King, CNN) Stem cells are cells that exist in an undifferentiated state, and can transform into any of the 220 types of cells that exist in our body. Stem cells have the ability to repair many classes of damaged human tissues without the fear of tissue rejection. There are two types of stem cells but the most promising are the embryonic stem cells- labeled as today’s

First, we must acknowledge that stem cell research is unethical and immoral. Religious groups claim that because embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of embryos, it is a form of abortion. Creating embryos for the sole purpose of commercial use, followed by discarding, is morally wrong, unacceptable, and strongly opposed when other options such as adult and cord stem cells are just as easily available. There is no ethical way to use the tissues or products of stem cell research without linking to an immoral act. The majority of Christians have the same outlook on this research, “The Human embryo... should not be destroyed or seen as disposable tissue that can be used in research” (Shuman). Every embryo develops differently,

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

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2001/07/27/july-27-2001-religious-views-on-stem-cell-research/15307/ gives us a look at what some religious comunites have to say about the research.The U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops oppose the research as “immoral, illegal, and unnecessary.” They say life is sacred from the moment of conception.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.” Stem cell research was considered by some to be an aberration and a threat to the moral