The discussion on whether parents have the right to decide on the use of embryonic stem cells that are attained from their new born baby is quite an open question considering the fact that it touches religious and societal morals as a whole.
While stem cells are removed (along with the embryo) and used for study to potentially save a life, more risks are taken in doing this than many people realize. As one of the biggest arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that the scientists are sacrificing human life, it is a fair
STEM CELL RESEARCH is a very controversial topic in today’s time. Not only has it sparked a hundreds of debates it also has been the center of much criticism for its use of human cells. For those of you who don’t know stem cells are unspecialized cells found in living things and are able to grow and rebuild themselves as long as the host is alive. Stem cell research is not worth supporting. Advocates of stem cell research believe that the cells are not equivalent to human life because it is inside the womb even facing the fact that the start of a human life is in the moment of conception.
Destroying these embryos in research would not deprive them of a valuable future. It would be unethical, under whatever circumstances to practice wanted embryos for research. Human animal chimera, an experiment was conducted using the genetic material from human convey to an animal. In addition they argue stem cell research paid minor contemplation to the potential of the umbilical cord. The therapy point out that no medication have been yet produced.
Most people in our society, no matter what level of education that they may have, have heard of the cloning, specifically the cloning of Dolly the lamb, and have some notions regarding the idea of cloning humans. "The successes in animal cloning suggest to some that the technology has matured sufficiently to justify its application to human cloning" (Jaenisch et al.). However, not every agrees that human cloning is a something that should be put into practice (Hoskins). There generally seem to be two basic divisions on this issue: those who find it inappropriate and unethical, and those who find it a reasonable and necessary step in the progression of scientific research (Lustig).
Many people view this as destroying a potential for life to futher scientific research and knowledge. A lot of the opposition to stem cell research comes from the moral belief that human life begins at conception and some see it that destroying an embryo for medical research or even to treat another human is morally the same as killing a human child or adult for research. Many people with these views are strongly religious Roman Catholics or Orthodox
Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Vital The embryo a very early life form, so early it’s not really even a child yet; inside of it embryonic stem cells have form. These cells carry great potential for medical advancement. With them many lives can be saved, that is why the research needs to continue. Embryonic research is worth the loss of some embryos; the embryonic stem cells gained through the process can and have reduced the suffering of many, can be used to create insulin which could one day lead to a cure for diabetes, and can also grow new human organs.
“Fetal Tissue Fallout, R. Alta Charo, J.D., September 3, 2015” In this article R. Alta Charo states that we have a right to use fetal tissue for research and therapy (Fetal Tissue, 1) The article goes into how a lot of people find this to be a moral issue and a matter of the conscience and explains how the antiabortion activist that don’t agree with the research are actually benefitting from the fetal tissue. They argue that the research supports abortions but have taken part in receiving vaccines and therapy that comes from the research. R. Alta Charo begins by talking about the argument over the antiabortionist activist who pretended to be a research company representative and gave out false, edited information from a Planned Parenthood video that goes over the services they provide.
As technology advances, more things become possible. One of these things is genetically modifying a baby, this is very wrong. Genetic modifying or genetic engineering is altering someone or something’s DNA. Scientists hope to cure diseases with this method, but doing this can lead to some harmful effects. This process is very unethical.
“How do you know when an embryo is dead?” (Robin, Barnett). This however, has been solved as scientist began to use already dead embryos. However, they were cautioned by right-to-life campaigners. “In theory if an embryo is obtained ethically and a stem cell can be derived after the embryo has died naturally, then that will remove all ethical
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.
Embryonic stem cells are the cells which potentially provide life to a blastocyst and lead to the creation of a fetus, or baby. Recently there have been many experiments conducted to extract embryonic stem cells from the blastocyst. With this new research, has also come a huge controversy. Although embryonic stem cell research is practiced with good intents and is designed to find cures for people already suffering or living a limited lifestyle due to health disabilities, what is not always mentioned is that another human’s life is being destroyed in the process. These innocent babies, whether it be considered legal or not, are being plucked from their mother’s womb to be used for nothing more than a science experiment.
“The main arguments against genetic modification of human embryos are that it would be unsafe and unfair, and that modification would quickly go beyond efforts to reduce the incidence of inherited maladies” (Caplan). During the altering genes in the mother 's womb cause a lot of dangerous situations and
Designer genetics to create a baby after careful selection is a meme, and “we can say that memes are ‘selfish’, that they ‘do not care’, that they ‘want’ to propagate themselves, and so on, when all we mean is that successful memes are the ones that get copied and spread, while unsuccessful ones do not” (Blackmore 37), and some may consider this genetic modification to be a successful meme which is why parents are so willing to try it. By using technology in this type of way, it may possibly benefit some if it is spread for good causes, such as helping a baby be born without a disease that is known to run in the family so the parents won’t have to see their child go through pain. Many parents put their faith in “23andMe” and their technology because it is their last hope to be able to conceive a child without them having to worry about any debilitating disease or disabilities and since this procedure would be implicated even before the child is developed, there would be no questions of morality. However, some people might take advantage of this new technology and use it for nothing more than creating their fantasy child, as they start to choose non-health related traits such as weight, height, gender and eye color.
This procedure’s purpose is to switch out genes for more preferred ones, especially to improve the health of the child. Genetic engineering could permit selection of desired physical and pleasurable traits for non-medical reasons, which has created concern in some people. The process of switching out the genes of a fetus to install genes that are more preferred has brought up debate about whether or not parents should be able to alter their babies genes to make them more appealing to the parents interests. There are many different ways of looking at this procedure and in contrast to other scientific procedures it can be for greater good or for unnecessary enhancement that could potentially create problems in society. Designer babies aren’t morally correct or incorrect, but are in between depending on what it is being used for.