Embryonic stem cell research is an exciting area of regenerative medicine because of the probability of enormous potential for finding treatments and cures for debilitating diseases, disabilities, and cancers. The possibilities to learn and understand human growth from researching stem cells could lead toward a future where human suffering is all but eliminated [1]. The reasons that embryonic stem cells are more favorable than any other source of stem cells is because alternative stem cell lines are shorter-lived and do not have the same level of pluripotency. From a utilitarian perspective, the morally favorable option is to use embryonic stem cells from embryos since they are not equivalent to a fully formed human being, stem cells are taken …show more content…
The biggest problem with this argument is that many do not agree that the embryos represent human life for several reasons. The first of these reasons is that embryos lack the physical and psychological properties that humans possess. The collection of cells does not contain a central nervous system, nor any way to communicate pain or suffering [2]. In fact, the required components of the central nervous system that need to develop in order for a fetus to feel pain are not formed until 20 weeks after conception [3]. Additionally, an embryo is not viable until it has implanted in the walls of the uterus. Even in vivo, eggs can be fertilized and fail to implant into the uterus and they do not develop into a fetus [2]. The termination of a blastocyst is equivalent to an embryo failing to implant in the uterus which happens quite often in nature. Therefore, if the embryos are never implanted into a woman’s uterus, they should not be considered human beings and consequently are not guaranteed the same rights and protections as fully-formed, developed human
Globally, scientists are turning to stem cell research as the most promising step to curing many of the harshest diseases and conditions including cancer, Alzheimer’s, stroke, paralysis and many more. Stem cells are useable as a replacement for damaged cells because of their self renewing properties. Their form allows them to act as other types of cells and regenerate as a substitute for the affected cells or as a way of testing new medications. Stroke related disabilities alone account for more than 1.2 million people and millions more are impacted by other cell related disabilities making stem cell research an essential pursuit in order to make strides in medicine (Cunningham 368).
Do you think the five-day-old embryo should be accorded the status of a human person? If not, why not? If so do the potential benefits of ES cell research outweigh the ethical objections? I do not believe that a five-day old embryo should be accorded the status of a human being.
Pro-choice advocates would argue that the fetus can’t express feelings, feel pain and is not physically independent from the mother therefore they are not yet considered human.
However, on the other hand, Bonnie Steinbock in her article “Most Abortions Are Morally Legitimate”, she says that abortions and morally acceptable because fetuses are not living beings, hence they are unconscious and don’t have any moral status because they are unaware about their interests and doesn’t feel pain or anything. She says fetuses does not have any human being rights and it depends on the mother what she wants for her body and she has all the rights to decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not because she is a living being.
Mary Anne Warren establishes a belief that a fetus’s right to live is overruled by an expecting mother’s right to an abortion because it is not a technically a true person until it is born. Warren supports her argument by saying that a nearly full-developed fetus is no more significant than a small embryo because “…it is not fully conscious… it cannot reason or communicate message… and has no self-awareness” (Warren, page 499). In contrast, our text states that “…some fetuses develop the capacity to survive outside the womb…” after nearly being two-thirds fully developed; this means that a fetus is ultimately capable of communication and awareness through it’s movements (Munson and Lague, page 469).
Over the years, there have been many controversial issues surrounding medical research, but one of the most arguable topics of all time is the use of embryonic stem cells. Some individuals believe that extracting stem cells from unborn babies will be useful to create new medications or, in most cases, help regenerate damaged cells. Although, many people disagree with the process scientists use to obtain these stem cells. By continuing embryonic stem cell research, scientists are denying an unborn child the chance to live, they are not letting nature take its intended course, and they are not adhering to the religious or moral beliefs of many people.
Embryonic Stem cell research is a controversial issue in America right now and has been for years. Personally when I first saw read about this topic I knew I was going to be against it because of my religious beliefs. However, after doing more research and reading more into it, I actually think we need to continue funding for this. I know many people would disagree with me but this could save millions of people from suffering every day.
The lives of newborn children are protected by law; however, the live of embryos are not when it comes to abortion. If you asked the pro-abortionists why it is legal to kill a human being before birth, but it is illegal to kill the same human being after birth, they would likely point you to some of the differences that exist between humans in the womb and humans out of the womb (abortionfacts.com). The pro-abortionists’ opinion in Roe v. Wade illustrated that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn because embryos and fetuses are not independent beings until they are “viable.” The Supreme Court defines viable to mean the start of the third trimester, which between the 24th and 28th week of a pregnancy (Foer, 1997). However, the scientists demonstrated that an embryo is a "whole, separate, unique, living, human being" from the moment of conception by doing DNA fingerprinting and polymerase chain reaction.
This is obviously taking things too far because the embryoid would be going against the natural process and this would resemble a baby being born without any parents or through an unnatural process. Continuing on this path of unnaturally creating embryos and perhaps even allowing them to develop into humans could potentially create challenges on how these new beings would be treated compared to the rest of us. Even though humans have the ability to start to create things like embryos doesn’t mean we should because it can open the door to problems in the
The neurons have to create a “sentience” to feel pain. The sentience is not even formed in the first 14 days that is why the embryo is not considered a person. Even though the human embryo doesn’t have a desire to care about what happens to itself, it is still a “Human” embryo. This argument is great, however, the argument that wins over this is that the embryo deserves respect. The embryo may not have any desires, but it has a moral value.
One of the most important arguments to this debate is presented through the scientific lens. Although embryonic stem cells pose enormous potential to treat and cure diseases and conditions, adult stem cells are more effective in treating these conditions. Adult stem cells pose a much lesser risk of forming tumors or not functioning as originally intended (Smith). Adult stem cells are also currently used today, as bone marrow transplants are a form of stem cell treatment (Stem Cells in Use).
However, in most cases it is the embryo that is aborted and not a fetus, which is the stage in which the embryo starts to develop. As such an embryo cannot be written in statistics as a life lived as it is dependent solely on the carrier, thus aborting at this stage technically should not be considered as the taking of life but as a decision on whether to facilitate this possible life. Personhood begins after a fetus is able to survive outside the womb, not at conception. Conclusion
iii. Improved Health Care for Future Generations Some medical experts have opined that the advent of stem cell research could be the greatest development when it comes to eradication of the human race’s suffering and pain since the invention of antibiotics. iv. Millions Have Benefited There are several diseases and ailments that have been thought to be curable and scientists are working around the clock to locate these cures. C. Cons of stem cell research i. Ethical Conflicts Now that scientists are using much more ethical methods to perform stem cell research, many of the old battle cries have begun to fade away.
While the first part of their conclusion is correct, there are still some flaws. They say embryos are complete humans because they have their own distinct genetic code and the fact the embryo will become a full human in just nine months. Embryos are just incomplete humans but they are still humans. Now, the idea that an abortion is fine if the woman’s life is questionable. While it is desirable to save both the baby and the mother, sometimes only one can be saved.
Sadly, this right is violated when performing abortion. People who support abortion say that the fetus in the womb is not considered a human being yet, so it does not kill or harm anyone. “In fact, unborn babies probably feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a uniquely vulnerable time since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.” (Ranalli) The babies inside the womb feel pain, they are no different than an already born baby or an adult.