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 to the 2000’s where George W. Bush joined to 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 he 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… These boys and girls are not spare parts”. Later on that year, Bush signed a bill to ban the creation of human fetuses for the sole purpose of harvesting organs. Soon after, the House proposed another bill that they had hoped him to sign to promote efforts to conduct stem cell research without destroying human embryos. Bush had called it “an important piece of legislation”, but several politics said that it would distract attention from his veto for the funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
Researchers and officials say that about 400 000 frozen embryos are stored at several U.S. fertility clinics with the vast majority await removal because couples that have produced these embryos do not want to raise them and also don’t want another person(s) to raise their biological child.
One problem that I think is an issue in the stem cell debate is the destruction of the stem cells and how it’s practically the same thing as destroying a human being. I don’t believe that researchers and scientists should continue using embryonic stem cells for research because we are obviously not finding a cure for human diseases yet although for animals we are, it’s just not right to destroy a human being if we cannot find treatments for major diseases within a decade or so.
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.
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.
Some people who are for abortion say that the baby can be put up for adoption. While they can be, there are already four hundred thousand children up for adoption in the United States of America. Only, one fourth of those kids are waiting
Couples experiencing infertility issues now have a number of options at their disposal from in-vitro fertilization to intrauterine insemination or going as far as using a surrogate and donor eggs or donor sperm. Technology has made it possible for someone to experience the joy of parenthood regardless of whether they can naturally conceive children. All of these procedures come with their own ethical questions and pros and cons. One of the biggest moral dilemmas is what to do with the left-over embryos still in storage when a family has decided they have had enough children. Most couples see this ethical quandary because they recognize that the embryos are whole human beings and do not think it is morally right to dispose
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.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
...ting embryos specifically for stem cell research should not be allowed. Continued stem cell research will benefit all of mankind with its promise of medical advances. Opponents’ concerns about destroying human life will be quelled because stem cells will be taken from already doomed embryos. The federal government will be able to regulate the research and ensure that it is lawfully conducted.
What if there was a cure for cancer or a treatment for spinal injuries? Would you support the research? What if there was a way that you could repair damaged nerves. Some believe that stem cells may hold the answers to some of these questions. What are stem cells and why should you or I even care about them? Some believe that they are a miracle treatment waiting to happen while others believe that stem cells are highly immoral. Why does so much controversy surround the issue? Why is the conversation of stem cells feared by some and praised by others? To some stem cells are the medical hopes for the future, something for us to hang on to as we do battle with major diseases that include cancer, Parkston’s disease and spinal injuries. To others stem cell researchers are murderers who are trying to play God’s hand. A many have pledged their support to stem cell research including a few well known celebrities. Reeves’, who was best known for his role in the early Superman movies, and J. Fox two well-known celebrities, have pledged to stem cell research, both have created a private fund for the research of stem cells. This celebrity however has not swayed everyone to support stem cell researches cause. Just as there are supporters of stem cells there are those who believe that the use of stem cells is immoral. Since the first stem cells were separated there have been doctors, religious groups and even some political figure head have shown their opposition for stem cell research. Even with the knowledge and promise that stem cells show many of those who truly oppose stem cells have not changed their mind. The question is are their reasons good enough to halt the research of stem cell or are they just holding back what will soon be inevi...
This report aims to investigate the different views held on the pros and cons of development in stem cell research. This report will provide background to the debate, its social significance, parties that are involved and analysis of the arguments related to the topic researched.
“Federal Funds Should Not Be Used for Research That Destroys Embryos.” Stem Cells. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints.
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.
Lanza, Tyler. "The Stem Cell Research Controversy." Stem Cell History. N.p., January 5, 2011. Web. 16 Feb 2012.
Foht, Brendan P. "Three-Parent Embryos Illustrate Ethical Problems with Technologies." Medical Ethics, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
Stem cell research should not be allowed because it is unethical. Embryonic stem cells which are on stem cells from human embryos are a reason some people believe that Stem cell research is unethical. Since the only way that scientists know they can get embryonic stem cells is from human embryos, they use 5-14 day fertilized embryos to get those stem cells. Religious groups and anti-abortion groups believe that a living person is being destroyed to do research and they believe that it is a crime against humanity " Destruction of human life cannot be justified, even if the aim is to save other human life" (Bioethical). People are argue that the destruction of human embryos is not necessary because they can use other stem cells like Adult stem
Current research to cure disabling diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries are at an all-time high. With influential speakers to encourage these movements to end these diseases, many see the value in finding a cure. This brings up the discussion of whether or not embryonic stem cells research should be allowed. The process would be extracting stem cells from a five to seven-day old embryo, and then used to develop tissues that can be used to cure certain diseases. Some view the issue with this process to be that the extraction of stem cells kills the embryo, which goes against the pro-life perspective (14.8.1) That the agree in using embryonic stem cells in research want to save lives as well, just from