Through Critical Analysis Of Pope Paul Vi’S Encyclical

The studying of stem cells is a very controversial issue that has been around since 1998 when the research of the use of embryonic stem cell treatment began. The main issues surrounding the discussion of treating people with life-altering disabilities through the use of these pluripotent cells is the ethicality of the matter and whether or not it is a savage act against a fetus. Many who oppose the use of these stem cells derived from excess embryos use the formerly stated opinion to support their argument, while those who are pro research argue that the destroying of one life could save another. The core complications that arise in studying stem cells lies in many Christian-like ethics and morals, otherwise called Christian bioethics. These are rooted in the modern day controversies arising due to advancements made in biology and medicine, mixed with religious views that argue against it. The conflicting interests of the polar opposites which are scientists and those with religious views have caused many complications along the way to discovering new treatments and cures for diseased cells. This bumpy road which has refrained scientists from making tremendous breakthroughs must smooth itself out, and the only way possible is through coming to an agreement that certain stem cell research should be practiced, such as the IPSC and adult stem cells, and others like the

The issue of birth control remains one of the most controversial issues within the Catholic Church dividing members at all levels including the clergy. The Roman Catholic Church for the past 2000 years has been a major opponent of artificial birth control (BBC). Pope Paul VI made a clear declaration on the use of birth control when he wrote ‘the Encyclical Letter ‘Human Vitae’ on July 25, 1968 which banned Catholics from using contraceptives (Pope VI). These important declarations demonstrate the power of the Papacy to shape public policy on matters relating to human health and reproduction on a global level. The belief within the Catholic Church is that God have the sole power over the creation of life and humans have no role in this

The Catholic Church and the practice and advancement in medical research have been debated many times over due to the ethics of some practices. Throughout the history of modern medicine, many practices have sparked debate on the nature of the medical practice and whether it is ethical. Many medical practices have directly contradicted the beliefs of Catholics and the Catholic Church. A current topic of debate is the use of embryonic stem cells which are mainly from aborted fetal tissue, which is used for medical research. This improvement in the field of medicine has been argued many times, mainly asking if the practice is ethical or not.

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).

Abstract: Religion has played a key part in the battle for embryonic rights. Pope John Paul II has spoken out against stem cell research; however, Buddhist leaders and the Episcopal Church have taken a stand for stem cell research. Different religions have different opinions about stem cell research. However the controversy can never really be solved because it is so hard to define the line of morality when talking about stem cells and embryos.

The ethics of research involving fetuses or material derived from fetuses have been widely debated for over three decades, portrayed by its proponents as holding the key to scientific and medical breakthrough and by its opponents as devaluing the most basic form of human life. The latest chapter in this long saga involves the use of embryonic stem cells. Research in this field took a great leap forward in 1998, when the first successes in growing human stem cells in culture were reported independently by Drs. James Thomson and John Gearhart. According to the National Institutes of Health, embryonic stem cell research "promises...possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson 's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns, and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards (National Institutes of Health 2000). Research in this new and developing field has sparked controversy centered on the moral implications of destroying human embryos and poses several compelling ethical questions. Among them: Does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth? Might the destruction of a single human embryo be justified if it can alleviate the pain and suffering of many patients?

The primary argument against this new form of research is that scientists are growing live human beings in a lab. Some argue that because the child is growing in a petri dish and not a womb, it is no longer human. They argue that birth is a key part in the formation of a person, and since the children being grown are never birthed, they are no longer a human. Moreover, some religious protestors claim that the babies grown will never have a soul because ensoulment occurs in the womb. They are unable to say what will happen to a child without a soul, but argue that the children will never have a chance to go to heaven. “Young human beings, especially in their unique vulnerability during early stages of development, are ‘ends’ in themselves, entitled to unconditional respect and protection, not ‘means’ to be utilized to achieve other goals, even when those goals may be lofty and high-minded,” says Father Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (PBS) This the Church’s extreme disapproval of this research. Furthermore, some opposers claim that once the embryo becomes an “individual,” it is murder to destroy it, yet it is also unethical to continue growing it. Therefore, regulations must be kept where they currently are, if not made stricter. The only solution that satisfies all aspects of the Church’s disapproval is the halting of embryonic research. However, this is

When looking at our reading titled “Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and the Therapeutic Use of Human Embryotic Stem Cells” we learn that the Roman Catholic church proclaims it is morally impermissible to produce or use living human embryos to obtain embryotic stem (ES) cells to produce and then destroy cloned human embryos to acquire the stem cells, or to use the ES cells that others have already derived. In this paper I will address some objections against the churches argument; thus showing that obtaining embryotic stem cells is impermissible.

After many years, the government has finally agreed to fund and support the research of embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately during the time it took to make this decision

The vast amount of companies seeking to employ HESC will go as for as to take advantage of women as shown through history for financial gain(2). Deborah White states that many pro-life organizations see the destruction of the embryo as murder and, the research done on the stem cells is actually human experimentation. White also states that those who oppose stem cells claim that inadequate tests using HESC have been done on humans. In addition, adult stem cells have not been studied enough, and may be able to yield the same results as HESC. “Ten Problems with Embryonic Stem Cell Research” states that tumors have been shown to form in injection sites from adult stem cells. People who are given new organs will also need to be on immune represent drugs for the rest of their lives to ensure that their bodies would not destroy the transmitted cells (Kelly Hollowell). The moral and ethical implications are alarming to some. Jane Maienschein, author of Whose View Of Life, quoted the loose term of life given by the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Somewhat vaguely applied to the product of generation of any plant or animal which is in process of formation”(50). Ernst Haeckel’s research showed that the gastrula was the beginning stage of all life this theory was also supported by the common belief that actual life started to develop around 40 days, in which the baby begins to take the form of its parents. Unfortunately, the current rule and even law of some nations only allow

Embryonic stem cell research is a hot topic of debate in our modern age, as scientific development continues to push the boundaries of ethics. The debates lies in whether or not it is helping or hindering society, as the procedure involves the manipulation of a human embryo.

Whenever these fertilized eggs are unwanted and unused by potential mothers, they are often donated to stem cell research labs without the full consent and understanding of the person whose genes are in the embryo. The embryo is immediately placed in a petri dish that replicates the environment of a mother’s uterus and allowed to begin growing into the person it would be. At this stage, the embryo can still be placed into a woman and has the potential to form a human life. The life is allowed to grow and form not only more stem cells, but specified cells that would have later formed every part of the natural body, including the building blocks for lungs, a tiny beating heart, and even eyelashes. However, these lives are never given the chance to live. They are rather allowed to begin developing, and then are dissected live, injected with toxic substance in order to gain a reaction, or mixed with the live cells of a deadly disease

The argument on the benefits of embryonic stem cell research has long been argued. Whether or not the benefits are a justification for the act of destroying these cells, and also is a, typically, five to six day old embryo at a stage where it can be considered a being with a life source all

Stem cell research is surrounded by controversy, relating to the morality of the use of stem cells for medical procedures. This is often associated most strongly with embryonic stem cells, due to the fact that in order to harvest embryonic stem cells the formation of an embryo is necessary. Commonly it is argued that, since that embryo could have potentially became a human that it is unethical to destroy them for research. It is important to note that stem cell research in its very nature is unique from any other medical research, this is because stem cells are essentially blank slates of human cells, undifferentiated, meaning that these cells have potential to become

Another milestone in science has been reached: the discovery of stem cells in the 19th Century. Stem cells have the ability to divide for indefinite periods in culture and to give rise to specialized cells (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). According to the National Institutes of Health, embryonic stem cells derive from four to five day old embryos, also known as blastocyst, that have been fertilized in vitro and donated to research purposes with informed consent from the donors. Adult embryonic stem cells are found in differentiated cells in a tissue or organ. The main purpose of these cells is to repair the damaged tissue in which they are found. Since this discovery, there has been controversy over whether embryonic and adult stem cell research should be federally funded, and the ethics involved.