Stem Cell Research Essay example

Given the choice, would you trade one person for multiple persons, would you give one life to save many? Now imagine that the person is already dead, would you have any objection to using them to cure diseases and save lives. It is highly debated as to whether or not stem cell researchers should be able to use stem cells from aborted babies in the research. A stem cell is defined as an undifferentiated cell of a multicellular organism that is capable of giving rise to indefinitely more cells of the same type, and from which certain other kinds of cell arise by differentiation (Stem cell). In the research stem cells from aborted fetuses or left over fetuses fertilized in in-vitro fertilization are used for medical and research purposes (Stem cell research). Stem cell research could be used to cure many diseases.

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

The book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is arguably one of the most well known books ever written. What many people don't realize is with modern technology humans might not be far from creating artificial life. Through research involving STEM cells and “designer babies” we are near the point of creating parts of the human body. The problem is, seemingly immutable laws have restricted scientists abilities to study STEM cells. The unremitting battle between the two sides is what holds this country back from reaching its full health potential.

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.

Stem cell research has been quite a controversial topic since its origin in the 1960s by Gopal Das and Joseph Altman. Of course, anything that uses a human embryo would be. Stem cell research could open a vast number of new doors for modern science, it could let us test new drugs, one of which could be the unfound cure for AIDS or Alzheimer’s disease. However, this branch of science comes at a high price, the price of a human life that is only five to six days

The President’s Council on Bioethics published “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” in 2004. This report was written in response to President Bush’s comments regarding research of human stem cells on August 9, 2001. President Bush announced that he was going to make federal funding available for research that involved existing lines of stem cells that came from embryos. He is the first president to provide any type of financial support for the research of human stem cells. A Council was created with people who are educated in the field of stem cells to help monitor the research and to recommend guidelines and consider the ethical consequences that this research could create. This report is an “update” given

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

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.

“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.

In the contemporary world of today, the issue of embryonic stem cell research is one of this controversial significant topic regarding which there is neither fair/moral agreement nor understandable, wide-ranging laws. As far as the ethical debate is concerned, it focuses on the verifiable piece of information that stem cell research consists of destroying the very early embryos of the human beings. The federal government has restricted the financial support for stem cell research to research that makes use of the stem cells obtained from a small amount of stem cell "lines" (Shapiro, 2006).

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

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

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