Stem cell research has shown to be a very promising field within the medical and scientific communities. Adult stem cells that have been reformated and stem cells from umbilical cords have shown to be very helpful in the past in treating chronic illnesses and some debilitating diseases.But when it comes to the possibility of embryonic stem cells being used to cure varying illnesses and diseases moral and ethical questions have been raised by many different individuals and groups of people.Because some individuals hold the belief that by removing stem cells from the human embryo that is in very early stages of development (blastocyst) that you are destroying a human life or at least the possibility of a human life.It's obvious that if these embryonic stem cells were not removed from the blastocyst a human being would surely and most likely develop eventually. After all, everyone began their life as just a small grouping of cells (blastocyst) days after their conception.So essentially some individuals believe that by taking embryonic stem cells from these blastocysts you are eliminating a life that "could have been".The argument of whether or not a blastocyst is a live human being is a complicated argument and depends solely on one's opinion of when a life technically begins.For example, the Pope and members of the Catholic church claim that a human life begins at conception, while others claim a human life begins later on down the road when the human fetus is more developed.Because a group of cells can't think, feel, or make conscious decisions for itself right?
Well, while this may be true I heard a statement made by the con side's argument during our class debate that to me accurately portrayed an example similar to the existence of a blastocyst.They stated that if someone is in a vegetative state, cannot act physically for themselves, and cannot make conscious decisions for themselves do their family members just automatically pull the plug?Life should not be destroyed until one can determine whether or not the chance to live has diminished from being a possibility.Many of the embryonic stem cell lines that are already available for use were obtained when couples went through the process of in-vitro fertilization.In in-vitro fertilization more than one of the female's eggs are paired with the partner's sperm in an attempt to increase the chances of a successful fertilization ocurring.But usually a couple will only choose to have one or two children at most and have the other fertilized eggs simply thrown away.Embryonic stem cells can be harvested from these fertilized eggs that are scheduled to be disposed of.So in a way why would we let these embryonic stem cells go to waste?In my opinion before opening the flood gates on embryonic stem cell research the existing lines of embryonic stem cells should first be tested on a wide range of possibly curable disabilities and diseases that many individuals suffer from.And then if there are extremely promising results then we should more than likely harvest stem cells from parents who do not want them and plan to simply dispose of them.But with the many ethical and moral concerns that are circling around this issue I believe it should at least be proven first that embryonic stem cells do what we think they do before we begin to harvest them in higher amounts.I mean if I wasn't sure how a certain company or corporation would do when they first open would I invest all of my stock into them?The answer to that is no.So I don't think we should put all of our eggs in one basket with embryonic stem cells before the proper experimentation is done and we learn more about their capabilities and the processes they can and can't be implemented in.With the supposed ability to clone human beings through the use of embryonic stem cells also arising as an issue in the past it only complicates the situation further.While if possible, the ability to effectively clone human beings would take much time and effort to perfect.Therefore I do not believe research on embryonic stem cells will focus solely on the technology of cloning human beings at least not for now.But down the road it could most likely be another issue that mankind will have to deal with.I agree with George W. Bush that by just doing research on the effects of using embryonic stem cells using the already existing lines is the safest way to go.Because that way we can first learn more about what they do before investing lots of time and money, and it would also help to avoid having to make the life or death decision when it comes to the "blastocysts" themselves.If the existing embryonic stem cells are used then no one will likely argue against it because it's in the past and the chance for a human life to develop passed a long time ago.It is usually the further practice or activity of harvesting embryonic stem cells that bothers the majority of people.Also the fact that the average American man and woman probably does not know very much about the facts of what embryonic stem cells are, how they are harvested, and the possibilities they've been said to have.It's like a lot of other issues in society in that most people are not well educated about the subject either because they don't care or they have no way of finding out.People cannot fully make a conscious decision as a whole without first understanding all of the facts about the subject.Therefore a lot of individuals who are accounted for as either being for the harvest and research of embryonic stem cells, or against the whole process may or may not know or have heard all of the facts about embryonic stem cells.Take myself for example, I'll admit that I do not know and understand all of the stages of development in human beings therefore I don't believe I can rightfully or knowingly choose one side or the other.I would have to understand the full development of a human embryo up until the moment of birth before I could say whole heartedly when I believe a human embryo can truly be considered a human being.Therefore, I believe that many people simply have chosen sides on the subject just to back up there political party, family's views, friends views, etc.And sometimes individuals simply choose a side just out of spite, because they do not like a certain group of people and their beliefs and consequently they automatically choose to oppose them from the very start.If it was up to me I would allow only government scientists (not privately owned corporations) do research on the existing embryonic stem cell lines but I would discontinue and put a stop to the harvesting of new stem cells.This is due to my belief that to steal these embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst is similar if not the same as murder.To me it's simply logical to dispose of these stem cells because couples enter the process of in-vitro fertilization for one reason which is to have a child or children and not to donate embryonic stem cells.Although I do not understand why the possibility of placing these fertilized eggs into the body of another female who is struggling to conceive naturally possibly with the consent of the initial couple.Similar to a surrogate birth mother scenario and like an extremely early adoption of a child. Here is a link to a website that explains some of the pros and cons of stem cell research: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm.
Stem cell research has shown to be a very promising field within the medical and scientific communities. Adult stem cells that have been reformated and stem cells from umbilical cords have shown to be very helpful in the past in treating chronic illnesses and some debilitating diseases.But when it comes to the possibility of embryonic stem cells being used to cure varying illnesses and diseases moral and ethical questions have been raised by many different individuals and groups of people.Because some individuals hold the belief that by removing stem cells from the human embryo that is in very early stages of development (blastocyst) that you are destroying a human life or at least the possibility of a human life.It's obvious that if these embryonic stem cells were not removed from the blastocyst a human being would surely and most likely develop eventually. After all, everyone began their life as just a small grouping of cells (blastocyst) days after their conception.So essentially some individuals believe that by taking embryonic stem cells from these blastocysts you are eliminating a life that "could have been".The argument of whether or not a blastocyst is a live human being is a complicated argument and depends solely on one's opinion of when a life technically begins.For example, the Pope and members of the Catholic church claim that a human life begins at conception, while others claim a human life begins later on down the road when the human fetus is more developed.Because a group of cells can't think, feel, or make conscious decisions for itself right? 
Well, while this may be true I heard a statement made by the con side's argument during our class debate that to me accurately portrayed an example similar to the existence of a blastocyst.They stated that if someone is in a vegetative state, cannot act physically for themselves, and cannot make conscious decisions for themselves do their family members just automatically pull the plug?Life should not be destroyed until one can determine whether or not the chance to live has diminished from being a possibility.Many of the embryonic stem cell lines that are already available for use were obtained when couples went through the process of in-vitro fertilization.In in-vitro fertilization more than one of the female's eggs are paired with the partner's sperm in an attempt to increase the chances of a successful fertilization ocurring.But usually a couple will only choose to have one or two children at most and have the other fertilized eggs simply thrown away.Embryonic stem cells can be harvested from these fertilized eggs that are scheduled to be disposed of.So in a way why would we let these embryonic stem cells go to waste?In my opinion before opening the flood gates on embryonic stem cell research the existing lines of embryonic stem cells should first be tested on a wide range of possibly curable disabilities and diseases that many individuals suffer from.And then if there are extremely promising results then we should more than likely harvest stem cells from parents who do not want them and plan to simply dispose of them.But with the many ethical and moral concerns that are circling around this issue I believe it should at least be proven first that embryonic stem cells do what we think they do before we begin to harvest them in higher amounts.I mean if I wasn't sure how a certain company or corporation would do when they first open would I invest all of my stock into them?The answer to that is no.So I don't think we should put all of our eggs in one basket with embryonic stem cells before the proper experimentation is done and we learn more about their capabilities and the processes they can and can't be implemented in.With the supposed ability to clone human beings through the use of embryonic stem cells also arising as an issue in the past it only complicates the situation further.
While if possible, the ability to effectively clone human beings would take much time and effort to perfect.Therefore I do not believe research on embryonic stem cells will focus solely on the technology of cloning human beings at least not for now.But down the road it could most likely be another issue that mankind will have to deal with.I agree with George W. Bush that by just doing research on the effects of using embryonic stem cells using the already existing lines is the safest way to go.Because that way we can first learn more about what they do before investing lots of time and money, and it would also help to avoid having to make the life or death decision when it comes to the "blastocysts" themselves.If the existing embryonic stem cells are used then no one will likely argue against it because it's in the past and the chance for a human life to develop passed a long time ago.It is usually the further practice or activity of harvesting embryonic stem cells that bothers the majority of people.Also the fact that the average American man and woman probably does not know very much about the facts of what embryonic stem cells are, how they are harvested, and the possibilities they've been said to have.It's like a lot of other issues in society in that most people are not well educated about the subject either because they don't care or they have no way of finding out.People cannot fully make a conscious decision as a whole without first understanding all of the facts about the subject.Therefore a lot of individuals who are accounted for as either being for the harvest and research of embryonic stem cells, or against the whole process may or may not know or have heard all of the facts about embryonic stem cells.Take myself for example, I'll admit that I do not know and understand all of the stages of development in human beings therefore I don't believe I can rightfully or knowingly choose one side or the other.I would have to understand the full development of a human embryo up until the moment of birth before I could say whole heartedly when I believe a human embryo can truly be considered a human being.Therefore, I believe that many people simply have chosen sides on the subject just to back up there political party, family's views, friends views, etc.And sometimes individuals simply choose a side just out of spite, because they do not like a certain group of people and their beliefs and consequently they automatically choose to oppose them from the very start.If it was up to me I would allow only government scientists (not privately owned corporations) do research on the existing embryonic stem cell lines but I would discontinue and put a stop to the harvesting of new stem cells.This is due to my belief that to steal these embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst is similar if not the same as murder.To me it's simply logical to dispose of these stem cells because couples enter the process of in-vitro fertilization for one reason which is to have a child or children and not to donate embryonic stem cells.Although I do not understand why the possibility of placing these fertilized eggs into the body of another female who is struggling to conceive naturally possibly with the consent of the initial couple.Similar to a surrogate birth mother scenario and like an extremely early adoption of a child. Here is a link to a website that explains some of the pros and cons of stem cell research: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm.
No comments:
Post a Comment