Embryonic Stem Cell Controversy

Imagine a world free from disease. The idea of a utopian society has been far from reality until the research from embryonic stem cell therapy surfaced. Since former president George W. Bush banned federal funding on embryonic stem cell research in 2001 it has caused a halt in advancements and caused controversy in the public. According to an article by Beau Watts, an accredited physician; embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells (Beau Watts). This means they have not decided what function they perform yet. Since the cells do not know the function, it can be determined by scientists. As described in the “Guidelines for the conduct of human embryonic research” by the international stem cell society; medical professionals can take an embryonic stem cell and “reprogram” it to eliminate the disease. Today 2,200 people died from heart disease (American heart association). Heart disease is only one of many diseases that can be cured by embryonic stem cell research. Religious and/or conservative groups now condemn the research, for multiple reasons. Embryonic stem cells are donated by patients of in-vitro fertilization. After a “round” of IVF, they can choose to donate, freeze, or discard their leftover embryos. Embryos contain two layers, it is the innermost layer that contains the cells used in embryonic stem cell research (Society for stem cell research). It is very important to know that, the embryos that could be used in the research are donated upon request of the patient.

Just recently, in March of 2009, President Obama lifted the Federal ban on the funding stating: “At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.” Obama believes, like many others, that this type of research, though ethically triggering, can improve the survival rate of some diseases and in turn improve the live span of many worldwide. “Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work.” Obama also understand that research like this can take years to produce a positive and worthwhile result, but in order to produce such a result, support is needed by both the government and the people. He understands the costs, but believes that the benefits outweigh them. (“Obama on lifting…”)

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

But anti-abortion activists have also scored big when it comes to blocking new medical research that may lead to better contraceptives and earlier medical abortions; like RU 486, as well stem cell research for the treatments for numerous diseases. “Fetal tissue research, for instance, has led to advances in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes and leukemia. Despite the fact that organs from the corpses of murder victims can be donated, antiabortion activists believe tissue donation from aborted fetuses encourages abortion and should therefore be prohibited,” (Hontz,1998) .

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

Through change and uttermost struggle, the people who care about a subject always seem to push through for what they believe in. For the sake of Embryonic Stem Cell research, the advocates tried their best to show the advancements stem cells may withhold, and for the people who disagree with the research, always seemed to put a new light on the subject, simply humanizing the research. Although the destruction of a human embryo is not something many people would view as ethical, it is something that could hold much promise for those who suffer from terminal illnesses (Sherley). When the miracle of assisting those who could not reproduce children through In Vitro Fertilization transpired the world of stem cell research was acquired (Tauer 924).

The introduction and expansion of embryonic stem cell research initiated a highly debated ethical topic. Can our society agree to disagree? What are embryonic stem cells? What are stem cells? Is all stem cell research considered abortion? Debates surrounding embryonic stem cell research is further complicated by social standards and needs, religious beliefs, and personal morals.

In order to understand arguments against the use of stem cell technology in the United States, it is crucial to understand the sociopolitical background of its constituents. America is well known for having a varied and diverse ethnic background composing of immigrants from around the world, but in 2012, 73% of Americans claimed Christian affiliation (3). This overwhelming majority of Christianity means that its accompanying religious beliefs emerge in many aspects of our sociopolitical ideology. Much of the opposition to stem cell technology is grounded in the Christian tenet of anti-abortion, which is the source of embryonic stem cells. Although embryonic stem cells are still the gold standard in research and therapeutic use, use of non-embryonic stem cells such as induced pluripotent stem cells is rapidly increasing and does not require

One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of

¨I am disappointed with the president's decision to initiate federally funded embryonic stem cell research,¨ Bob Barr. a former house of representatives member, argues that the use of human embryonic cells is morally and ethically wrong. (Procon.org) To elaborate on what Barr is saying, he's stating his opinion on how he feels stem cell research should not be legally funded. Also according to Michael Cook, no one was helped by human embryonic stem cell research. (Opposing Viewpoints) Many people believe human embryonic stem cell research is wrong because of the use of aborted fetuses. However, aborted fetuses are being sent to fertility clinics and then being destroyed after the abortion process is over, using them for stem cell research would be better because at least the fetuses are being used for good after something bad has happened to it. ¨Moral sincerity is not impressive if it depends on willful ignorance and indifference to logic,” says Michael Kinsley while talking about fertility clinics destroying more embryos than stem cell research. (Kinsley 30) Human embryonic stem cell research is not immoral and should be legalized for the help of aborted

Imagine living in a world without cancer, Parkinson 's, or even diabetes. While everyone may wish this is true, people are against a way that researchers can make this possible, which would be by the use of stem cells. There is major controversy on whether or not stem cell research should be allowed, especially when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. Although many consider it to be killing a potential life form, embryonic stem cell research may eventually be acceptable to use because there is consent and a lengthy process to make sure the donor understands what their embryonic stem cells will be used for. That may be viewed as a much better

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?

More than one ethical position on stem cell research could be called "religious"; and as a Christian, could ethically support stem cell research because of its potential for relieving human suffering and enhancing human health and well-being. There is more than one way to be moral, more than one way to translate one's faith commitments into public policy. (185)

The controversial topic of stem cell research has been a controversial topic for a very long time. In 2001, George Bush severely restricted government-funded stem cell research. In 2009, Barack Obama allowed it. The order says that National Institutes of health can produce new procedures and policies in which the money can be used. On August 23, 2010, a federal judge issued an order blocking all research of stem-cells, including that allowed even when Bush was president. On July 27, 2011, Royce Lamberth, Chief judge of the federal court in Washington, D.C., said that stem cells could be used for life-threatening diseases. The Court of Appeals agreed with this, and the case was brought to a close (Stem cell policy).