Stem Cell Research is an Assault on Life Essay example

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

Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life?  Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming reality.  However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells.  In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos.  President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently President Obama lifted many of

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.

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

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

Other scientists supporting embryonic stem cell research say that the 64 lines the President has allowed funding for will soon need to be replaced because of age. Before any more federal funding is allowed for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, it is critical that the government examines the concerns that the anti-abortionists have then determine if it is morally acceptable to further fund ESC research.

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.

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

“A spokesperson for the Family Research Council, William Saunders, reportedly suggested that pro-choice abortion rights groups should not defend human stem cell/embryo research because it has not directly linked to reproductive choice. He said: "It's incredible that they're so ideological that they can't separate this. He continued: "You can have the argument that abortion is a conflict of rights between the unborn child ... versus the woman's right ... to control her own body. [However] this is a different issue. This is where a human being, without their consent, can be used for research to benefit someone else. It's a living human being. It's not a situation where you have even the question of the remains of an aborted human being. This is a live human being that has to be killed." —quoted in Robinson, “What is a Human Embryo?” I agree with this man completely this is not about abortion this is about using a human without his consent to be used for research. If that person is an adult where they can say “Yes they can use me for this science experiment” or “No I do not want to be used for this experiment because X” There is a complete difference in saying yes or taking the right that every person is entitled to, the right to freedom of speech. If in taking that away then why not take away all other rights as

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.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

While some people might say that stem cell research is immoral and unethical, others believe that it is a magical solution for almost any problem, thus leading to a very controversial issue. Scientists have been searching for years for ways to eradicate incurable diseases and perform other medical procedures that yesterday's technology would not fix. With the rapidly arising, positive research on stem cell technology, the potential that exists to restore any deficiency is in the same way, likely to destroy humanity. America is suffering from its inability to choose who holds precedence over this issue. Too many of us find it impossible to reach a basis for which our differing opinions can be shared and formed into a universal and

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

Stem cells have been isolated and used for decades to treat a variety of diseases. Since 1968, bone marrow transplants have been performed because the stem cells found in the marrow stimulate the creation of healthy cells, which combat and hopefully eradicate diseased cells (Chen, et al). The reason scientists initially had so much interest in human embryonic stem cells is because these cells have the capacity to develop into an unlimited variety of human cells. By using human embryonic stem