The Debate On Abortion And Stem Cells

The issue of Abortions has been a controversy for years now. There are two main groups for this problem, Pro-Life, and Pro-Choice. Pro-Life supports the human rights of life should be embraced, by religion and ethics. Pro-choice is when someone wants to make this choice without no remorse of human life, but because someone wants no part of it raising one.

In our government today Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President are all faced with making tough decisions for our country. These decisions are not only decided based off the constitution but the ideological shift as generations go on. Possibly one of the most controversial landmark decisions the government is currently being challenged with is the affair of abortion. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States was presented the case of Roe v Wade. The ruling decided a person has the right to privacy protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This gave women the right to decide to have an abortion, but only under regulations from the state. As a result of this case, scientific research was conducted on stem cells starting in 1978 when a scientist discovered stem cells in human cord blood. From 1981 to 1991 scientist tested stem cells in mice, hamsters, and later in primates. 1998 marked an important discovery of pluripotent stem cells in an embryo, which is where the problem lies between the morals and ethics of citizens and the politicians’ jobs to decide for the people what is right for stem cell research.

December 20, 1968 David Faraday and Betty Lou Jensen would go on their first and last date together. On this fateful day the two would be brutally murdered by an unknown killer, who would become known as the Zodiac Killer. There are as many as 37 other victims that were claimed by the Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac Killer’s identity is still unknown today and is the antagonist of one of the most disturbing cases in American history. As the Zodiac Killer took innocent lives as if he was picking candy from a candy store he tested what methods worked, what he liked, and how to not get caught. He took innocent lives of people, and did it in some of the most brutal ways possible (Zodiac). This sounds a lot like a problem we are faced with in today’s society; the destruction of children for the use of stem cell research, the use of embryonic cells, and cloning.

The issue of abortion is has been widely debated for many years and still continues to lead headlines today. It sparks debates in classrooms, courtrooms, and family rooms across the country as the issue is so complex, there are a variety of views and responses to its morality and legality. To understand the current debate over the issues concerning abortion we must not look at this issue from a black and white perspective of what is right and what is wrong , but rather we must take a comprehensive approach which analyzes the complex questions and factors tied to the morality of abortion. By looking at the responses to the question of abortion, as discussed by Mary Anne Warren, Judith Jarvis Thomson, and Don Marquis, we might better understand on how to respond to this issue in terms of what we think and why others assert the view that they do. A comprehensive understanding of the many issues tied to abortion allows one to most successfully defend their beliefs on this complex issue.

In recent years, stem cell research has become a prominent way of treating: heart disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS, spinal problems, and much more ; moreover, in recent years as Stem cell research became more popular, it has sparked controversy over the religion aspect of stem cell research. Stem cell research begins with culturing an embryonic cell and then injecting the stem cell into the area of concern(Robertson). Pluripotent stem cells are gathered and used to treat the areas, pluripotent stem cells are those that are in the earliest stages of development ; in addition, at this stage, cells can learn the jobs and take shape of cells that did the job once before (Robertson).

Imagine a world where people only talk about cancer and a desperate need for organ donors as part of a history lesson. Medical advancements have brought technology closer to making that world a reality. Recent advancements in knowledge of stem cell research has already created the ability for doctors to print a functional organ just as easily as people can print a persuasive research essay. With great medical advancements comes great controversy. The main way researchers have been studying stem cells is by harvesting undifferentiated embryonic stem cells. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research claim that stem cell harvesting damages and kills the un-born embryo; however, because of advancements in the stem cell harvesting process, embryos are not required to harvest embryonic stem cells and embryonic stem cell research can lead to great medical advancements. What is the main reason the embryonic stem cell research is controversial?

Stem cell research is a fairly controversial topic in the United States. Stem cells are cells that have the potential to become certain types of cells throughout a human body. There are a few types of stem cells, which are embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are the most controversial due to the manner from which they are obtained. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells gathered from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, which is an early-stage embryo that contains about 50-150 cells. However, the extraction of these cells causes the blastocyst to be destroyed, which is what raises many flags to people. The controversy of stem cell research began as early as 1996 when congress

With the subject of abortion, it seems that no consensus will ever be reached. Those who argue in favor of choice will never see from the perspective of the pro-lifers and vice versa. The major difference is that those who are pro-choice have never been responsible for the deaths of the opposition. Before the Roe v. Wade case made abortion legal in this country, abortions were unlawful in the United States. Anyone who needed or wanted an abortion for any reason, physical or emotional, would have to go to back alley abortionists who would be working with unsafe tools and in unsterile conditions which would be a breeding ground for bacteria and germs. Many women died during these procedures, or from the later infections related to the abortions. Others were left permanently. Decades after the passing of this important piece of legislation, people still debate whether or not abortion should be legal and under what conditions, if any.

Richard’s response to the question clearly comes from a more capitalistic and economic standpoint. However, he still manages to touch upon the heart of the issue and the overall goal, which would be promoting the common good. He recognizes that the demand for healthcare certainly does exceed the supply however he fails to offer a legitimate proposed solution. Murray, on the contrary, does offer some insight on this. She argues from the Catholic perspective that one must have a preferential option for the poor, which embraces the poor class with a genuine purpose. She points to the fact that the Catholic Church has advocated for a Universal Healthcare system since it ultimately is their belief that health and healthcare access is a fundamental

I believe that embryonic stem cell research should be allowed in the United States. From previous encounters with the topic I have learned that the many benefits that can come from stem cell research are without a doubt astounding and unimaginable. There are simply endless possibilities that can arise if the research was allowed to be conducted. From giving back vision to rebuilding tissue, any advance in stem cell research would be beneficial to the medical world. With the help that the advances would make, this world could come closer to many cures to diseases that are to come, and to diseases that we have already.

If pregnancy was not in your plans, would abortion be an option? Although there are many debates surrounding abortion, the argument about the rights people feel that both the mother and the unborn child have, who has rights and why do they have them. One side of the debate goes that a woman owns her own body and has the right to do whatever she pleases to it.

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

As Elizabeth Harman (Princeton professor, department of philosophy) stated “a typical abortion will prevent certain burdens to one woman; even if the woman’s life is at stake, it is simply one life, compared to the many lives that might be saved by stem cell research”(207). She argues that the ethics between embryonic stem cell research and abortion are vastly different. In her view, an abortion takes the pressure of a single woman. It removes the burden and the stress from one person, while destroying the fetus. It provides no benefit to anyone else, as opposed to embryonic stem cells which have the possibility to aid many. In her mind, an embryo (at the stage where it would be used for research), is not truly human, and therefore has a negligible

The debate on abortion is an ongoing battle of pro-choicers against pro-lifers. Texas being known to a conservative state, recently signed into law a three point abortion plan to try to reduce the amount of texans having abortions.

In the words of former First Lady Nancy Reagan: “Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to alleviate so much suffering. Surely, by working together we can harness its life-giving potential.” Stem cell research shows so much promise to help people by treating diseases and other problems through therapy. While it seems as though the clear answer is that we should study stem cells as soon as possible, this is sadly not the case. Stem cell research is an ongoing controversy within politics and the courts because of the process by which embryonic stem cells are obtained. This conflict divides people on their moral and religious views: When does life begin? Because of this issue, there have been numerous court rulings deciding if and when stem cell study would be federally funded and even when stem cell studies would be allowed. These court rulings have significantly slowed down progress in stem cell research, and stem cell exploration will progress slowly if the government doesn’t make stem cell research a priority. The best approach to stem cell research is to freely allow and support scientists to conduct further experimentation because knowledge and use of stem cells will only progress through experimentation. More financial support is needed to prove that stem cell treatments are successful, and if monetary support is provided many lives will be saved as the end result of the research.