Banning embryonic stem cell research would give life a chance to happen since frozen embryos in labs could be implanted into a woman's uterus and become a child at any time. In addition, there are health risks involved with stem cells since instead of curing diseases, stem cell transplants can pass viruses or other agents to patients and thus, cause even more diseases. Furthermore, scientists are cloning embryos in order to overcome tissue rejection during cell transplants and this will inevitably lead to human cloning, which is both dangerous and morally wrong. There is no justifiable reason to continue researching embryonic stem cells since it is immoral, unethical, dangerous, and very
While the nation scrambles to take sides in the debate of embryonic stem cell research, President Bush pushed through the embryonic stem cell executive order in August 2001. This order restricted federal research grants to approximately 78 existing human embryonic stem cell lines currently in existence and prohibited federal funding of any new lines. In effect, the president said, “no” to the continued funding of the destruction of new human embryos. Recently, the House drew a line in the sand by passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 on a bipartisan vote of 238-194. As this debate grows, it is obvious that not all of the facts are being presented to the American public.
Saying this though, I would never ask someone who I have impregnated to get an abortion. But I can see with some people it would be the only way out. If the mother was raped or could not support the baby with any kind of a decent life then the more humane thing to do would be to get an abortion. There is the argument of if it would be better to carry out the birth and give the baby up to orphanages and adoption but the toll that would take on the mother to give up her baby after actually seeing it would be immense. We cannot judge about people who have either undergone abortions or thinking about because we do not know what kind of life they actually have and what they could be going through.
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.
Scientists now have evidence that stem cells exist in the brain and the heart. If the differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis of transplantation-based therapies. It is because of Reeve that spinal cord injuries and stem cell research are so widely discussed, according to Smith. The fact that it happened to Reeve showed it can affect anyone, even Superman. Reeve did not live long enough to see whether stem cell research could help restore movement to the paralyzed.
Embryonic Stem Cell: What Can It Cure? Everyone grows old. No one knows exactly when they will lose their memory due to old age and the diseases that may soon follow. Embryonic stem cells (ESC) research proven time and time again, that it can help with memory loss from diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson’s. Restrictions on embryonic stem cells (ESC) research should be lifted around the world because the research has made tremendous progress to cure multiple diseases, aid in the recovery of spinal injury, and human ESC being used by scientist were going to be discarded.
I’m here to say that it should be allowed, so that more people like me can be cured. It’s a great advancement for medicine. Other people out there with other diseases that can’t be cured have a better chance of living a normal life. The ban that the Congress put on embryonic stem cell research states, no federal government
Natural law may also disagree with the use of IVF, as it wouldn’t consider the possible outcome of new life created or health benefits from research with spare embryos. Aristotle considered that all things, all objects or beings have four causes, which explain what and why it is, how it came to be and its purpose in life. These were: the material (what its made of), the efficient (how It is made), the formal (its character) and the final (its purpose). Aristotle concluded that the final cause of humanity was eudemonia: complete happiness and living according to nature. And they would reach summon bonum (supreme good) when they found this.
According to Warren, “the moral community," decide if a fetus can become part of the moral community. The mother, being an actual person, overrides the rights of a potential person, the fetus. Warren continues to state that a woman, who wants to have an abortion and is not permitted to, is considered unconstitutional because her rights of freedom are being taken away. In Paul Wilkes “The Moral Dilemma of Abortion,” Wilkes rejects the claim that the embryo has a human soul as soon as conception occurs. Wilkes takes this stand and cites from modern embryology that conception doesn’t occur in an instance, but it takes place over a few days; while fertilization takes place in a matter of twenty-four hours.
This code created ten basic principles and as a result, informed consent was established (Escobedo 2). However, had HeLa been tissue samples stripped from names and taken from a repository, it would not have been considered research on a human subject and therefore no informed consent would have been required. Thus, informed consent laws contain flaws. Another mishap is that during a consented procedure certain complications could occur that would require the doctor to perform acts that were not approved in order to save the person’s life. However, what if the procedures performed were against the person’s religious beliefs and they would rather have risked dying instead of having the test done on them?