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
After the first trimester of pregnancy the risk of congenital deformation drops to 2% (McCrary, ML, Severson, J, Tyring, SK 1999). The obstetrician would have recommended the immunoglobulin due to the fact that the pregnant woman had never developed the virus and so would not have been immune, as well as being in close contact with her infectious daughter. b) What are the risks to the baby if chickenpox is contracted during pregnancy? Chicken pox during pregnancy causes issues in 3 out of every 1,000 pregnancies (Ács, N, Bánhidy, FG Czeizel, AE 2010). If chickenpox is developed prior to 20 weeks, it is very difficult to treat and there is a larger chance that the newborn will suffer from Foetal Varicella Syndrome.
There are many who view embryonic stem cell research as a procedure with many benefits. There are also many who view it as a procedure that is ethically wrong. Despite the promises cloning can provide, opponents view the procedure as morally wrong on ideological grounds while supporters hope that embryonic stem cell research can provide cures for numerous diseases and afflictions. To understand more of the controversy that surrounds embryonic stem cell research, readers must understand the differences and similarities of the two different type of cloning: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. “Therapeutic cloning creates human embryos through cloning in order to harvest their stem cells for medical research; reproductive cloning creates the embryos for human reproduction”.
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
The status of the human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue as, with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the pro-life movement, whose members are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life. They can believe that embryonic stem cell research instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life and some also view it as tantamount to murder. [8] The fundamental assertion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life is inviolable, combined with the belief that human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell to form a single cell. A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines.
Many people do not realize the significance this research can have on a human and society. This research can make paralyzed humans walk again. If this research was legal then who knows how far it can advance many different medical fields. It argued that this research is immoral because a fetus must be used, but this topic falls on all the same lines as abortion. The fetuses that come out of abortion can even be used in stem cell research.
The first one is called somatic-cell gene therapy. This kind is aimed at introducing genes into some of the somatic cells to correct a genetic defect. It is limited to the person involved and will not be transferred to future generations. The second one is Gem-line gene therapy, which would result in the correction of the genetic problem in an individual’s reproductive cells so that it would no longer be passed on to his or her offspring. The third one is referred to as Enhancement genetic engineering.
One goal is to genetically alter these organisms for use in human organ growth and transplant. The doctor says that, if she is not granted a patent, she will continue her research. Write a 1,750- to 2,800-word paper, addressing the scenario. Address the following questions in your paper: Should the doctor’s activity be considered a violation of the law, a deviant act, or neither? If this activity is a violation of the law or should be, how may it be stopped, especially if the doctor goes overseas?
As a nation we have to take in consideration the impact that cloning will create. Funding for cloning should not be tolerated because it is too dangerous and destructive for mankind to handle. Cloning is the making of an identical copy of something or someone. Reproductive cloning occurs with the idea of duplicating a past or existing organism. Therapeutic cloning is used for medical treatments by cloning stem cells that produce
And naturally, people are worried about "Designer Babies". Perhaps you're concerned about the slippery slope argument—we'll start treating awful diseases, but then quickly move to less critical medical needs, and on to purely elective procedures. But wouldn't the same logic apply? The fact that you might be able to convince a doctor to implant horns on your head isn't a very good argument for not letting a doctor use similar plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct a burn victim's nose. So why is it that we would say that the possibility of genetic engineering being used for something less urgent than preventing a life-threatening illness is a reason to not allow it to be used at all?