Summary: Should Christians Positively Embrace IVF

2. The most effective argument in his essay is when he says “Millions are suffering. This is precisely the argument that research-cloning advocates are deploying today to allow them to break the moral barrier of creating.” In this argument he points out how the research advocates can't be trusted because a year ago, they assured they only wanted to do stem cell research on discarded embryos. He also points out that the research advocates create new excuses in order to keep breaking the moral barrier. In addition, they promised to only grow human clones only to the blastocyst stage. In other words, they would not create a human embryo in the laboratory. Today, they are campaigning hard to permit research for the creation of human embryos. This shows us that the research advocates are not keeping their promise because they are campaigning in order to create human embryos. The author's

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

The ethical issues with this procedure are not rooted in the utilization of non-human elements to aid the procreative process. So why the moral fuss over the McNamara's method of growing embryos? The heart of the issue was the potential risk to the child. Animal diseases, either known or unknown, can easily be transmitted to humans through xenotransplantation (the use of live animal cells, tissues and organs for transplantation)[9]. There is the potential, both in xenotransplantation and in the utilization of animals in the procreation process, of placing humans at major risk of contracting new types of infectious diseases[10]. Clearly the McNamara’s view and attitude towards creating their offspring may not have been the most ethical way but they would have done absolutely everything to have the one thing they wanted in this world: a child. Do we have a right to have a child at all costs? It should be obvious that our rights must be limited for the sake of others, especially when our own actions would endanger the lives of others[11]. Are there ethical limits to our good, God-given desire to reproduce? There are limits to all our good desires, precisely because these desires are given by God to be coordinated with one another according to His specific design for human beings. When we add to this the fact that our God-given desires are mingled with sinful desires, selfish impulses, and fallen drives, the need for limits becomes even more apparent[12].

The technology of the world today is fast-paced, fascinating, and extremely helpful in many cases. The ever-changing field of medical technology has changed and/or saved the lives of countless people. Doctors are able to perform procedures on patients today that were unheard of only 5 years ago. However, not all procedures and practices may be biblically ethical. Christians must decide which procedures are God honoring and which ones are not, especially when infertility is involved. Dr. Rae mentioned five theological foundations for bioethics that believers should evaluate in order to discern the uses of technology in the interference of the natural process of conception. Dr. Rae’s list consisted of the following: Dominion Mandate, Impact of

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

Christianity And Infertility In this coursework (essay) I will be talking about the Christian attitudes towards infertility treatments and explain that there are different views on this subject and why. But because there is nothing in the Bible specifically about these treatments, I will have to do some research about it and try to get different Christian views on this subject. However there some teachings in the Bible that can help us to understand Christian views on these treatments. I will try to get two different views on these treatments.

With that being said I also understand why abortions are morally wrong. I know that the counter-argument is one based on religious and ethical viewpoints. It is morally wrong to have an abortion in the eyes of God. Harvesting embryos is morally wrong because we have scientists who are playing “God” and altering the course of natural life. However, regardless of my viewpoints, using stem cell research is a huge medical advance. God, created us in our human form, capable of endless thoughts and knowledge. Which leaves me with these closing arguments. Would God create man with such knowledge, he didn’t want to be used to benefit mankind? Would he want his children suffering when we have made miraculous advances in medical

Another argument is that these practises are unnatural and should therefore be not be performed. Religious beliefs often come into this, stating that it is unethical to ‘play God’ in deciding to create new forms of life. Yet, this is based entirely on the oversimplified assumption that everything natural is good and everything engineered by humans is bad; a notion with no real basis. Medical and technological advances in all areas of industry are by definition unnatural, yet most come without ethical concern, so why should this

My research on why people don’t concentrate on the alternative and put their funds into iPS and adult stem cells is because a lot of people don’t think or agree that fertilizing embryos is a good idea. They feel like it’s wrong. Just like Abigail Chandler a former IVF patient has a feeling her embryos should not be tested on due to the fact that she doesn’t want her embryos to fail and be destroyed. Many are against this because this may lead to rejection of healthy embryos or the implantation of embryos with development problems. I believe fertilizing embryos is a bad idea but has its benefits. It provides major benefits which includes decreasing the suffering of infertile couples. It also reduces the distress and social issues and lastly the usage of embryos for research purposes. A patient

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.

One of the main negative aspects surrounding this science is the fact that bioengineers are riding the line between advancing medicine and “playing God.” This creates a raging storm of moral and ethical dilemmas. For instance, the synthetic biology involved in creating artificial organs leads some to conclude that scientists are going too far with their endeavors: “Whenever such culturally sanctioned boundaries are breached, researchers are inevitably accused of playing God or treading in Frankenstein’s footsteps” (Van den Belt par.1). Many believe these tasks are not meant to be performed by human hands. Moreover, though man-made organs spark controversy, the most disadvantaged aspect of biomedical engineering comes from the use of embryonic stem cells. The debate emerges due to the fact that “to obtain embryonic stem cells, the early embryo has to be destroyed. This means destroying a potential human life” (“Embryonic stem cell research” par.2). To clarify, this signifies that bioengineers must choose between two moral principles when faced with stem cell research: the duty to use their findings to alleviate the suffering of others or the duty to value even the earliest stages of human life. To reveal a connection, the question of whether bioengineers are playing the role of God can be related to Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. In the novel, Shelley sought to expose the alarming reality of the

Both ‘therapeutic’ and ‘reproductive’ cloning techniques create human life. I believe that life is sacred from conception, and must be valued. The embryo is valuable at the time of conception regardless of how the conception occurs. Therefore, therapeutic cloning is morally wrong because it creates life with the sole purpose of use for experimentation and ultimately, destruction. In this method, the stem cells are extracted for research and the embryo eventually dies. Pro-lifers have called this practice “technological cannibalism”.

Given the recent advancements scientists have made, often debated topics in the field of science have become a mine of questions for those of the Christian faith. One such field is biotechnology, which is the use of organisms or biological processes to further improve human life. More specifically, the topic of cloning animals and humans. Cloning has often been fervently debated throughout the years succeeding Dolly the sheep. The image that usually surfaces in the minds of the public, when discussing cloning, is often horrific, due to the misconstrued imagery that the visual and print media have filled the public’s imaginations with. Over the years, there have been numerous scholars on both sides of the debate who bring up noteworthy questions

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994