Embryonic Stem Cell Controversy

By definition, discovery implies uncertainty, but progress cannot exist without either. They are codependent upon each other. Whether the use of embryonic stem cells is truly the destruction of human life and whether the potential of human life is equal to the possible realization of that potential is also codependent. Neither of these questions can be answered without simultaneously answering the other. Arguments from both sides of this issue are extremely valid, which is why it has become such a difficult question for anyone with consideration of the opinions of others to answer. That being said, a rational stance on this issue must incorporate views from both sides, as well as logic to keep from becoming indifferent. A moderate policy should be adopted by the United States, one that allows the funding of research on spare embryos from IVF as opposed to their disposal, and one that allows for the use of Nuclear Transfer for the purpose of therapeutic cloning as long as the eggs are obtained from willing donors, though a policy that does not permit the production of human embryos strictly for research besides in the context of therapeutic cloning. This policy can be justified through the logic of Kantian Ethics, John Harris’s, “Stem Cells, Sex, and Procreation,” John P. Lizza’s, “Potentiality and Human Embryos,” and a public opinion expressed by Ian Wilmut.

The introduction and expansion of embryonic stem cell research initiated a highly debated ethical topic. Can our society agree to disagree? What are embryonic stem cells? What are stem cells? Is all stem cell research considered abortion? Debates surrounding embryonic stem cell research is further complicated by social standards and needs, religious beliefs, and personal morals.

This report describes how ethics involving embryos has been ongoing for 25 years but has significantly increased with the stem cell controversy. Another issue brought up by this report is whether or not federal funds should be spent on an issue that is so ethically

There are people who disagree on the morality of using human embryonic cells, and stem cell research in general, nonetheless. Some stubborn pro-life organizations insist that the destruction of the “blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg” (White), is on the same level as murdering a human child and is entirely immoral and unacceptable. Even if these embryonic cells are being used to save lives and cure diseases, they believe it is wrong because the cells were taken at the cost of a

The real question regarding all of the varying opinions and controversy, is what is a human embryo, and what is human life? Other questions include the morality of embryonic stem cell research and is bearing children a right given to us by society? Further discussion of these question will entail why in

In order to understand arguments against the use of stem cell technology in the United States, it is crucial to understand the sociopolitical background of its constituents. America is well known for having a varied and diverse ethnic background composing of immigrants from around the world, but in 2012, 73% of Americans claimed Christian affiliation (3). This overwhelming majority of Christianity means that its accompanying religious beliefs emerge in many aspects of our sociopolitical ideology. Much of the opposition to stem cell technology is grounded in the Christian tenet of anti-abortion, which is the source of embryonic stem cells. Although embryonic stem cells are still the gold standard in research and therapeutic use, use of non-embryonic stem cells such as induced pluripotent stem cells is rapidly increasing and does not require

While few can debate the potential “miracle cure” aspect that seems to be wrapped within stem cell research, the method for obtaining such cells has been a topic for debate. The process of extracting pluripotent cells destroys their host embryo, and as yet, no pluripotent cells have been found in older adult tissues. Opponents of research on embryonic cells claim that embryos – from the moment that fertilization occurs – are sentient human beings and should therefore be afforded the same protections against abuse as anyone else (“The Cases For”). But what if a method were readily available were viable stem cells could be extracted from an embryo in a manner that would not deny life – however such life were defined – to the unborn fetus? What if such a potential solution could ease the minds of not only those who oppose stem cell research but also help to quell the dispute of another “Do Not Kill” issue – abortion?

But anti-abortion activists have also scored big when it comes to blocking new medical research that may lead to better contraceptives and earlier medical abortions; like RU 486, as well stem cell research for the treatments for numerous diseases. “Fetal tissue research, for instance, has led to advances in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes and leukemia. Despite the fact that organs from the corpses of murder victims can be donated, antiabortion activists believe tissue donation from aborted fetuses encourages abortion and should therefore be prohibited,” (Hontz,1998) .

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

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

More than one ethical position on stem cell research could be called "religious"; and as a Christian, could ethically support stem cell research because of its potential for relieving human suffering and enhancing human health and well-being. There is more than one way to be moral, more than one way to translate one's faith commitments into public policy. (185)

Supporters of stem cell research argue that the fertilized eggs are donated with consent from each couple and that the embryo cannot develop into a child without a woman’s uterus. Other critics of stem cell research support somatic stem research because stem cell can be collected without destroying embryos. In conclusion stem cell research have create moral and ethical dilemma. Where we don't see to agree in what is best for humanity.

in their respective country. It shows that despite the location of the country, Hindus seem to hold a similar viewpoint on the stem cell research in all Hindu dominating countries.

Most people are against Embryonic Stem Cell research mainly because they consider it unethical to use aborted fetuses for research. The two main issues concerning the research are the ethics (Cons) and the benefits (Pros). In any scientific case, ethics must always be considered. But the use of fetuses is something that is of the utmost importance. The costs are generally measured based off of people’s feelings, morals, and knowledge about the subject up for debate. The use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research may have many positive outcomes that can come of it, but many negative outcomes as well; If using aborted fetuses for research can, in the near future, save lives, then it is a research that should be supported, even though some

The controversial topic of stem cell research has been a controversial topic for a very long time. In 2001, George Bush severely restricted government-funded stem cell research. In 2009, Barack Obama allowed it. The order says that National Institutes of health can produce new procedures and policies in which the money can be used. On August 23, 2010, a federal judge issued an order blocking all research of stem-cells, including that allowed even when Bush was president. On July 27, 2011, Royce Lamberth, Chief judge of the federal court in Washington, D.C., said that stem cells could be used for life-threatening diseases. The Court of Appeals agreed with this, and the case was brought to a close (Stem cell policy).