All humans, even those in the embryonic stage, are created by God and deserve our protection and respect. Also, it is not even verified that these cells can live up to the expectations of scientists, and in addition to committing murder for what is based on pure speculation, there are health risks involved in transplanting stem cells, since the cells have the possibility of passing viruses and even turning cancerous. Furthermore, scientists are cloning embryos in order to overcome tissue rejection during cell transplants and this will inevitably lead to human cloning (Stem Cells). Therefore, embryonic stem cell research should not be legalized and continued since it is morally wrong, dangerous, and may even lead to
Though a catholic would disagree: in my opinion embryonic stem cell research should be carried out based on the fact it could possibly lead to to treatmemt of serious diseases. Religiously Catholics consider an embryo alive and a human being from the time of conception. The embryo has to be killed once the stem cells are taken. Therefore, Catholics look upon embryonic stem cell research as murder. However most of the embryos that are used are left over from
It is being done in places like England and Korea, where researchers are now world leaders in this technology. I also believe fetuses stem cells should be also allowed, but some may disagree especially those believing in abortion. I have the belief that it is worth the risk and the research could lead to faster cures. The last research from stem cells is adults. Research on adult stem cells has generated a great deal of excitement.
Cloning seems like such an amazing thing to discover; the power over DNA manipulation might have baffled us and gotten us excited, but it is not something that is ethical. If the ability to modify the DNA of human beings is allowed to be practiced, there will be no end to what unnatural thing we will do. The technological advances that have been made in health have benefited us immensely but neither therapeutic nor reproductive cloning are wise uses of our new found knowledge. There is no doubt that with this technology, we will soon want to design our unborn children. When this becomes possible, it will not only change the process of child conception into a manufacturing process but also segregate the designer children and the naturally conceived children into two separate social classes that will eventually segregate the
So with that, they think the embryo is already a human being. The other side, which I’m pro for, is saying that the egg may be potential for human life when fertilized, but if it doesn’t attach itself to the uterus than it isn’t considered one (Advance Science Serving Society). As a whole most people are against it, because they’re scared of what we could do and see how far we can go with the technology we have. I understand the reason for most of those people’s worries. I was scared with what we could do myself, but I have a way we could make people not as scared.
Genetic diversity will also be greatly reduced, leaving the human race susceptible to certain diseases. The scientists with all their knowledge and skills, do not know what future consequences are in store for the designer babies. In my opinion, the ramifications could be great for such a trivial purpose. Perhaps society would be better served if scientist focused more on the enormous importance of environmental influences on our health in the future. While the public may not know much about designer babies it is hugely debated within the scientific community.
response to EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH: THE BLOOD TRAIL OF PROGRESS Paul A. Ibbetson a writer for The Conservative Crusader, defends and also attempts to clarify the typical conservative stance on stem cells in his article “Embryonic Stem Cell Research: the Blood Trail of Progress”. Ibbetson fails to justify his point that non-embryonic stem cell research is viable while embryonic stem cell research is immoral due to a number of errors in his delivery. The foremost among these is the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences; Ibbetson makes a half-hearted attempt to compare Hitler’s policy on genocide akin to Obama’s position on stem cell research, yet never truly explains the explanation. Another logical fallacy presented towards the
Outline Thesis: The science of reproducing human cells that normally could not regenerate on their own is promising but surrounded by controversy. I. The medical applications for human and/or derived stem cells are potentially unlimited. A. Their Side C- Embryonic stem cell research is considered a waste of federal resources by many people.
Scientists are looking more into this characteristic, trying to understand the signals that cause a stem cell population to proliferate. The use of these stem cells taken from one embryo could virtually save multiple people carrying disease. Also, we could limit the number of embryos truly needed, having this multiplying power. The many of millions living with an incurable disease live a depressed life, knowing their disease will someday end their life. No one should live like that and those people should be considered when talking of stem cells as a form of therapy.
Research cloning would be used mainly to reproduce embryos for their stem cells. B. Reproductive cloning would be used to create humans for infertile or homosexual couples. This is considered immoral even by pro-cloning advocates C. Both Research cloning is used primarily to harvest embryonic stem cells. A.