Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morals and ethics surrounding stem cells
Embryonic stem cell essay
Embryonic stem cell essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morals and ethics surrounding stem cells
Embryonic stem cell research occurs when stem cells from fertilized embryos are used as research for treating abnormalities and diseases among humans, by dissecting them and therefore killing the human soul in the embryo. It permanently destroys a living human embryo, sacrificing that precious life worth so much more than people realize. Nobody should be a human sacrifice. Every human life is precious, and from the second of conception, that embryo is a living human being. What is even more heartbreaking is that embryonic stem cell research isn’t necessary, yet it is still conducted. The reason why it isn’t necessary isn’t only because it is unethical, but also because conducting research on adult or cord stem cells, have the same effect as …show more content…
In every way, embryonic stem cell research is horrible and unethical and no human life should be sacrificed, for in fact, human life begins at the moment of conception. There are other options to find a cure for diseases and disabilities- like using adult stem cell research. Also, scientists have found that another way to conduct stem cell research without killing embryonic infants; which is by using immobilized cord stem cells. Doctors take the immobilized cord stem cells from the umbilical cord after the baby is born, and those stem cells can be used in the same way embryonic stem cells are used. Except when immobilized cord stem cells or adult stem cells are taken, no human life is killed in the process. And whenever there is the option to choose between sacrificing innocent human life and trying to preserve it, we must always go with the option of refraining from …show more content…
Thompson of he University of Wisconsin and John D. Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine discovered how to seclude stem cells in humans, therefore creating a totally new way to research cures and other remedies in the medical and scientific fields, and also making a huge impact on ethics as well. Shortly after this mind-blowing discovery was made, nationwide and individual state governments were forced to decide on funding for this new branch of science. After some experimenting, in 2000 researchers found that they preferred working with embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells (HSCR). This is when true controversy rose, bringing in opinions and objections from individual people and from the Catholic Church. The Church itself believes that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, and that human life should never be taken away, even if it should be for the benefit of the entire human race. They do not believe in sacrificing human life, and they believe that at the moment of conception the embryo is a living human being, and should not be killed. They believe that death should only come naturally at the hands of God (Taylor, CC). The opinions of many non-Catholics are also similar to the Catholic Church’s opinion; many people do not approve of the innocent and premature death of embryos. But some believe that embryonic stem cell research is the way to go; they may believe this because
Stem cell research has always been a widely debated topic in 'social and political forums' ever since the case of Roe vs. Wade in 1973. In that case the Supreme Court gave women the right to have an abortion whether or not they have a medical reason to. Whereas beforehand 'they needed a medical reason'. This "sparked controversy" over stem cell research with aborted fetuses. For many of those in favor of using fetal tissue for research it has too much "potential" in the future of medicine in terms of providing cures for diseases and "". Those against fetal tissue research believe it unethical to take one human life in order to preserve another.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
In the debate over whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), our country is being offered a true Faustian bargain. In return for a hoped-for potential - it is no more than that - of deriving desperately desired medical breakthroughs in the treatment of such afflictions as Parkinson's disease, paraplegia, and diabetes, we are being asked to give the nation's imprimatur to reducing human life into a mere natural resource to be exploited and commodified.
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.
...ns of a morally questionable nature. It is necessary that our practices remain ethical and that we uphold the value of a human life, as this is the cornerstone of human society. Embryonic stem cell research is one such operation that forces scientists, policy makers, and the larger society to define what constitutes a human life and to find an answer to the crucial question: Is it morally acceptable to violate the rights of a human life for the for the sake of medical progress?
Because of these high standards, all embryonic cells used for research come from embryos that have been formed for in vitro fertilization. The unused embryos, which are not used for the process, are discarded unless the donor gives explicit consent for their use in stem cell research (CIRM, 2015). Some who oppose stem cell research use scripture (col. 1:16) as a basis against using products of “sin to do good”. (Which is true). This verse only holds weight if you believe that you are ending a life five days after fertilization. I tend to side with Dr. Peter Kraus in this matter. He believes this early in the developmental stages there is nothing for the spirit of god to enter into. You might as well be taking a sample of the placenta, or cord blood (Kraus, 2010). The process of in vitro, which is where the samples come from, is further the product of man (i.e. Scientist) introducing the sperm to the egg. True, what follows after the embryo is introduced to the womb is a gift from god. Is not also a sturdy structure, a gift from god to a carpenter, when it is god who gave him the talent to build it? Lastly, if the stance is based on the topic of what is considered murder, are we not murdering the millions that could be helped with stem cell therapy by doing nothing?
The conflict surrounding stem cell research is, with ethical consideration, whether it is a good or bad. The majority of Americans are advocates due to the possibilities of medical advancement, thus saving thousands of lives. Those in opposition believe that it is against
As for me I believe that that embryonic stem cell researches should be used in the biomedical field because however you see the embryo as alive or not, the research will always go in the same way as one of the moral dilemma that says "duty to prevent or alleviate suffering" as it could help millions of people with incurable diseases.
I think that stem cell research has advanced in so many ways, with all the discoveries being made, and the new possibilities being explored. Although it still remains unethical because embryonic cells are one of the sources of stem cells. Why is somebody else’s life more valuable than someone else? Just because an embryo cannot talk, doesn’t mean, its life has any less value than a normal human being.
While many support embryonic stem cell research, some people oppose it say that it is an unethical practice. According to these people, embryonic stem cells require murdering a baby, human life is defined by rational beings, those capable of rational thought or a consciousness. In order to be rational one must have a consciousness, the ability to have thoughts and feel pain, to begin with. “For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness” (Stem). If abortions are allowed within the United States, why shouldn’t embryonic stem cell research be? Another claim against embryonic stem cell research is that it devalues human lives. “Some argue that researching embryonic stem cells will lead us into cloning technology” (Embryonic). While embryonic cloning is a possibility, we already possess the capabilities to clone so cloning is an invalid argument. The final argument against embryonic stem cell research is that there are alternatives, like adult stem cells. While adult stem cells may be utilized, they won’t be as effective. Embryonic stem cells are not only efficient but also renewable. They can be grown in a culture where as adult stem cells are extremely rare, if there are any. They can only be found in mature tissue. Isolating these extremely rare cells is challenging and has a high failure rate if not harvested correctly. “One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become” (Stem). Using adult stem cells we might never understand our development from conception ...
Have you ever seen a movie or read a book where they can tell what your child will look like or if they have a disease or birth defect. Or have you ever wondered how the world would be shaped if we could have clones or even erase genetic diseases. All of these things are theoretically possible with stem cell research. If we are able to reach this point what would we have to sacrifice in the process. To understand humanity would we have to sacrifice the values that truly make us human? What would the fail rate be if we are able to genetically enhance the human body?
President Bush's limited federal funding of research relying on the destruction of human embryos violates federal statutory law. Christians have grieved for many years over the assault on unborn human life set loose upon our nation by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. Even that decision, however, did not affect all areas of law where lawmakers seek to protect developing human life. Because they are not covered by the Court's theory of reproductive privacy, human embryos outside the womb may be fully protected by law - and at least nine states have acted to protect these embryos from lethal experiments. In some states, destructive experimentation on human embryos is a felony.
Within the past few years, scientist have made several breakthroughs with human stem cells. These breakthroughs have catapulted the issue of stem cell research into the middle of a national debate. Most people have no problem with the research itself, however the source of the stem cells (adult or human embryos) used in research is the primary cause of the debate. Some people feel that destroying an embryo is comparable to murder, even if the research it promotes may help people with serious illnesses. Other believe that an embryo is not a person and therefore research on an embryo is the same as research on any other group of cells.
Stem cell research should be allowed on adults but not on humans. Only allowed on humans who are willing to be a part of the stem cell research but no one should be used against their own will. Embryos should not be used for embryonic stem cell research. An embryo being used for their stem cells and then discarded devalues that human life. This follows along the same unethical issue as abortion. When stem cells are removed from human embryos, a unique individual dies. However, if abortion is legal in the state that this research is conducted than research may be conducted on only aborted fetuses. That would be an...
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.