More handpicked essays just for you.
Roe v wade: legalization of abortion
Should the government fund stem cell research
Roe v wade: legalization of abortion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Roe v wade: legalization of abortion
There has been a great debate on whether there should be federal funding for stem cell research over the last decade. This has been a very controversial subject because in order to obtain stem cells, scientists must destroy a human embryo; making this a subject ripe with emotional turmoil. For close to three decades, the status on funding for stem cell research has remained in limbo. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal in the first two trimesters, a decision made in the famous case of Roe v. Wade. In 1996, the Dickey-Wicker amendment was adopted, stating that there shall not be any federal funds “for the creation of a human embryo for research purposes in which the embryo is destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risks of injury or death” (Annas). …show more content…
In 1989, the ban on research was extended indefinitely after arguments that research would increase abortions was accepted as “valid.” This ban was not successfully lifted until 1993, when President Clinton intervened (Wertz). President Obama recently tried relieving the restrictions that President Bush had imposed on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Sherley v. Wicker threatened to stop the progress of getting federal funds for the research since it was based on the Dickey-Wicker amendment. However, a federal appeals court lifted “a preliminary injunction that had blocked the funding” giving the Obama administration a victory (Wilber). As of now, the majority of stem cell research is done through small organizations, both inside and outside the United States. The operations are limited by size and funding, but this allows them to continue their research on a small scale
When the issue of stem cell research was under scrutiny pro-life advocates exposed experiments from the late 60's and early 70's that had a profoundly "grotesque" quality (Maynard-Moody 15). For example in one experiment several fetuses had their heads removed and scientists observed the effects of starvation of the brain. These revelations gained the pro-life advocates a lot of support and mad the topic of fetal tissue research very "controversial". The controversy was revived when President Bill Clinton took office and "rescinded" President Bush's ban on fetal tissue stem cell research. Before Clinton all presidents. Were pro-life and many took measures to restrict or stop stem cell research (Steinbock 170-71).
For the past few years stem cell research has been a widely debated topic; however, former President Clinton?s stance?allowing federal money to be spent on tightly controlled stem cell research?lead to intense debates over federal funding for stem cell research. There are four ways of obtaining stem cells, which are taken from embryos that are approximately one week old. They are using unwanted embryos from fertility clinics, embryos from aborted fetuses, cloned embryos, and embryos created for research purposes. Stem cells can also be taken out of adult bone marrow, but scientists do not think that adult stem cells hold as much medical potential. Conservatives are against federal funding for stem cell research because they feel that by doing such the government would be contributing to ?murder.? This idea is rooted in the religious beliefs, which include the belief that life begins at conception, held by conservatives. However, liberals support federal funding for the research of embryos because they question whether embryos are full human beings and believe the research could expedite potential medical breakthroughs.
One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of development? While many argue that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential of developing cures for a number of illnesses that affect many individuals, such research is performed at the cost of destroying a life and should therefore not be pursued.
Currently, the limitations on research are too restricting, as researchers are limited to resources already gathered. There are sixty existing stem cell lines today, already derived from embryos. Researchers are to only use these lines. These limitations severely hinder stem cell research. The government, especially President Bush, should re-evaluate stem cell research.
Webb, S. (2009). Stem cell research is suffering due to the lack of federal funding. In A.
The eugenics movement was a period of time when it was believe that the genes of your father and mother gave rise to any and all traits, whether it be physical, mental, emotional, behavioral, and moral. Essentially, eugenics established that all of a persons appearance, skill, and potential was rooted in your genes.
In the 2004 presidential election, one of the most controversial issues facing voters was the battle over embryonic stem cell research. In the weeks leading up to the election, polls were indicating that 47 percent of Bush supporters agreed that the destruction of embryo cells is unethical; however, 53 percent of Bush voters supported stem cell research. The overwhelming majority of Kerry backers also supported stem cell research, indicating that the majority of American voters support stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research, while still in its infancy, has the potential to treat or perhaps even cure more than 100 million people suffering from a variety of illnesses and conditions. Scientists agree that stem cells could be one of the greatest revolutions in modern medicine. On the opposing side of the issue, many citizens believe that destroying an embryo is the equivalent to killing an unborn child. While many people assume the battle is about the use of stem cells for research purposes, it now seems that the major political controversy is the role of the federal government in funding human embryo research. Many scientists contend that the furor began with President Bush's August 2001 decision to limit government funding to embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created. Since then, scientists have been scrambling to expand funding for stem cell research with few alternatives. The central question is, "Should private funding from companies, individuals, and foundations control the future economic, public health, and social benefits of stem cell research or should the federal government?" Allowing the federal government to fund and, thereby, control stem cell research ensures appropriate regulation and ...
House, The United States White. Veto on H.R. 810, The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of July 2005. National bulletin. Washington: United States White House, 2006. White House Press Release.
Death raises many questions but leaves humankind with few answers. Overall it’s an avoided topic because it reminds us of our own mortality. With the help of modern medicine, the death of a loved one can be the saving grace for another’s life. Ironically those restricted from this life giving ability are those with the least regard for the sanctity of life, murderers. Currently, there is little to no strict policy regarding the donation of prisoners organs, it’s typically dealt with on a case by case basis. As a result of this loosely constructed course of action, those who ultimately pay for its disorganized structure are in fact those most in need of organs. Thus, a more rigid policy needs to be enacted especially in the case of murderers, who are condemned to be executed and as a consequence their organs as well. It’s a fact that convicted murderers have little to no rights when it comes to their bodies, however it’s a shame that the justice system doesn’t utilize this to save parts of
Due to public awareness of science, people started realise that the stem cells have the potential in developing cell-based therapies for many uncured diseases. Objectors claimed that it is morally wrong for the government to advocate stem cell research because the research demands embryos’ destruction (National Bioethics Advisory Committee [NBAC], 1999, as cited in Nisbet, 2004).’’It’s immoral that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded yearly instead of used to research cures for human suffering.” (Gilbert, 2008).In 2001, President George W. Bush made his stand to oppose the stem cell research by l...
In the past 40 years, scientists have developed and applied genetic engineering to alter the genetic make-up of organisms by manipulating their DNA. Scientists can use restriction enzymes to slice up a piece of DNA from an organism with the characteristics they want and spliced (joint) to a DNA from another organism. DNA that contains pieces from different species is called recombinant DNA, and it now has different genetic material from its original. When this DNA inserted back into the organism, it changes the organism’s trait. This technique is known as gene-splicing (Farndon 19).
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 a 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 these restrictions.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
Could you imagine being able to create new organs, tissues, muscles, and even food? With embryonic stem cell technology, believe it or not, these things are possible. Stem cells are the body's raw materials. Specifically, they are cells from which all other cells with specialized functions are generated. Under the right conditions in the body or in a laboratory, stem cells can divide to form more cells called daughter cells. These daughter cells either become new stem cells or turn into specialized cells with a more specific function, such as blood cells, brain cells, muscle cells or bone cells. The possibilities are almost endless. The debate and main issue with this technology is that the actual stem cells come from embryos. Embryos are an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development. Although there is controversy surrounding these cells, embryonic stem cells should continue to be researched and used, because they have so much potential.
The stem cell research controversy is one of the major headlines in bioscience and has been discussed and debated numerous times throughout the last decade or so. It became a major issue in 1997/1998 and continued into the 2000’s where George W. Bush joined the problem by vetoing the first bid that was brought forward by Congress to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. Bush stated after the veto that, “would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others” and also stated “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect”. Bush was also supported by children that he said, “began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization (in vitro means the technique of performing an experiment in a controlled environment outside of a living organism) but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete.