Stem Cell Research Persuasive Speech

President Bush was the first president that approved stem cell research of any kind. But he did not clearly outline what the policy was, or what his stance on it was. He drew heat from both stem cell supporters and detractors. He recounts how the doctors that were doing the research felt that Bush did not do enough to help them, and the people who are against stem cell research felt as though he did far too much to help. Bush also states how John Kerry used his unclear stance on stem cells as a means of calling Bush “anti-science”. This is a difficult topic to please everyone with, but Bush did not do the best job that he

Imagine a world where various cancers could be cured. Imagine a world where genetic diseases could be cured. Imagine a world where Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and blindness could be cured. Such a world may seem unrealistic, but the answer to these diseases may be closer than they appear; stem cell research. Stem cell research and its funding have caused enormous controversy over the past decade. It has produced differences of opinion from both ethical and legal views, causing some countries such as the European Union to legalize SCR while other, like the United States, have laws prohibiting it. However, the US government should legalize

The Department of Health and Human Services maintained a moratorium on federal funding for research on embryos and fetuses, as well as in vitro fertilization, until President Clinton issued an executive order lifting it in 1993 (Scott p.153). However, Congress banned federal funding for human embryo research by adding legislation known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to every appropriations bill for the National Institutes of Health since 1995, making it impossible for the President to overturn the ban without also cutting the cash flow to the NIH (Scott p.154). This restriction remains in place today. On August 9, 2001, President Bush “clarifies which human embryonic stem cells can be used under federal funding rules” by stating that any lines derived from excess IVF blastocysts before his announcement are eligible for grants (Hopkins 2005). Then in 2009, President Obama lifted the 'made-before ' restriction for stem cell lines but maintained the ban on creation and destruction of embryos for research purposes (Madison.com 2009).

In 2001, President Bush emphasized “Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care” (Bush). This decision not only halted the research but it forced new scientists and researchers to find new ways to use stem cells in an ethical way or they were basically forced out of the country to finish their progress. But in 2009, President Obama lifted this ban for stem cell research that Bush implemented. Although there is an amendment, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, that still blocks funding for stem cell research that has to do with embryos. Along with Bush’s’ statement, the amendment pressured stem cell researchers to find new ways to get cells that are as pluripotent as the embryonic stem cells that come from the newly fertilized embryos. But the real question is how is the use of embryonic

In the words of former First Lady Nancy Reagan: “Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to alleviate so much suffering. Surely, by working together we can harness its life-giving potential.” Stem cell research shows so much promise to help people by treating diseases and other problems through therapy. While it seems as though the clear answer is that we should study stem cells as soon as possible, this is sadly not the case. Stem cell research is an ongoing controversy within politics and the courts because of the process by which embryonic stem cells are obtained. This conflict divides people on their moral and religious views: When does life begin? Because of this issue, there have been numerous court rulings deciding if and when stem cell study would be federally funded and even when stem cell studies would be allowed. These court rulings have significantly slowed down progress in stem cell research, and stem cell exploration will progress slowly if the government doesn’t make stem cell research a priority. The best approach to stem cell research is to freely allow and support scientists to conduct further experimentation because knowledge and use of stem cells will only progress through experimentation. More financial support is needed to prove that stem cell treatments are successful, and if monetary support is provided many lives will be saved as the end result of the research.

The controversy over stem cell research’s use in the medical field is almost two decades old. So why the sudden intense return of fierce political debates over an old issue? It’s because President Obama recently revoked the ban on stem cell research, as he believes it holds the potential to revolutionize the medical industry in the years to come. As USA Today quoted him saying in March, after he stopped restricting federal funding for stem cell research, "At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and should not be overstated. Scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions."

Throughout the last couple of decades the rise of technology has influenced the lives of Americans in many ways. From the time scientists started in depth experiments with stem cells in the 1980s, to the present day, the use of stem cells in research has been a prominent topic not only in legislation, but also in everyday conversations (Bush). This is because of the controversy these conversations introduce, as well as the hope in the potential outcomes and cures they may bring (Clemmitt). Some people believe that stem cell research should not be performed due to the fact that using embryonic stem cells is considered a form of

The debate over human embryonic stem cells, though quieter as of late, is contentious and strained. In media commentary of the debate, and consequently in the public psyche as well, moral and religious arguments are pitted against scientific research and development. Despite frequent scientific advancements into this relatively young area of research, many still oppose the budding technology. In Democratic nations, this has manifested in a popular effort to use regulation to change the research environment at local, national and international levels. Debate at the state and national level in the United States has focused on the competition between the desires of some groups to codify the majority’s religious values into law and trust that the progression of science will benefit us in the long run (Parthasarathy, 2014). Cultural, historical and ethical considerations are large determinants of regulations in other countries as well. As the science of stem cells progresses, complex regulations will as well. The policy and regulatory environment surrounding stem cells has the capacity to greatly impact the course of future research.

These stem cells are known as somatic/adult stem cells and are stored in areas swarming throughout the body's system of cells until further use after incidents of wreckage of tissue, organs, or cell depletion. However, abnormal cell division can lead to life-threatening complications including cancer.

Throughout the history of the cloning debate, no Administration of either party funded a research project that relies on destroying live human embryos - until President Bush in 2001 authorized limited funding for such. The Clinton Administration's plans to do so were delayed by public opposition, then halted for good reason by the Bush Administration. The federal government has now decided to partially implement the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for embryonic stem cell research. This has opened the door to broader assaults on innocent human life in the name of research. Congress and this Administration in a limited way endorse the principle that alleged research benefits outweigh the inviolable dignity of innocent human

Stem cells were first isolated and cultured in November of 1998 and have been surrounded with much debate and controversy since day one. “Although the ethical debates have been mostly static and have closely mimicked the ethical debates over abortion, the political determinations concerning federal funding of stem cell research have gone through numerous evolutions in the years since the first hESCs were isolated and cultured” (Saltzberg 505). Research is currently being conducted on stem cells, but only with private funds. The federal government has a ban on funding embryonic stem cell research because of the controversial issue of using embryos and fetuses. However, because of the possibility of a renewable

It could alleviate human suffering by being able to treat various cancers, injuries, spinal cord transections, and degenerative illnesses like Parkinson’s disease (Robertson, 2005). In the United States alone, there are more than 17,000,000 people who will die of cancer and at least 5,500,000 of these might become well again and prolong their lives (Fish, 1945). Stem cells can increase the number of cancer patients to survive by providing an alternative treatment to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, which can damage healthy cells accidentally. Stem cells also offer another source for replacement cells and can form whole tissues and organs, which can then be used for transplants and speed up the process. Currently, donated organs and tissues are substituted for dysfunctional ones but the number of patients waiting greatly exceeds the number of available organs and some patients die while on the waiting list.

Reigate & Banstead Borough council prosecutes two landlords for unsafe properties Landlords have a series of health and safety laws that they must adhere to in every tenanted property. Some of the laws that landlords may encounter when renting property include the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1993. Most landlords adhere to these health and safety laws closely and with little effort, but many people still live in poor-quality rented accommodation that puts their wellbeing in danger.

In regard to destroying human embryos for the use of stem cells, he stated: “Like a snowflake, each of these embryos are unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being” (President Bush). As Bush mentioned in his speech, I agree that parents who go through in vitro fertilization should have the opportunity to donate these stem cells for research. With this loophole, the scientific discovery can push the stem cell research forward. Although Bush did ban research on stem cells and the funds offered for them, the current research and studies were not stopped. Some believe that “Bush’s ban limited government funding for research on embryonic stem cells-which have the potential of curing diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson’s- to already existing stem cell lines” (Park).

On Aug 9, 2001, Numerous American’s turned their television sets on to hear what they were communicated to be an important message from President George W. Bush that could have a key impact on medical study. President Bush revealed his long awaited decision on federal subsidy of scientific research on human embryonic stem cells. These cells are a distinctive type of cells in human embryos that have the capability to produce any type of tissue in the human body. Many individuals were expecting that the federal government would provide funding this research. They wanted to hear about whether embryonic stem cells would be developed in laboratory, into tissue and organs that could be utilized to treat or cure numerous medical conditions such as diabetes, heart damage, cancer, and disorders of the nervous system, etc. On the other hand, since embryos must be destroyed to extract their stem cells, many other people watching the president’s address, believed that such research would lead to the taking of human life expectancy, and they began to oppose the government support.