Embryonic Tissue

Embryonic cells should be allowed to be used because of the medical benefits they provide. They can be used to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and even vision and hearing loss (nih.gov 2009). There is no problem using them for medical purposes and it is not immoral to use them for this reason. Embryonic cells have the potential to save lives. Therefore, the usage of embryonic cells outweighs the ethical issues.

Embryonic stem cell research is important for further development in the medical field. It strongly supports the idea that every life has value, an idea known as human dignity. Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and thus, are all equal. The idea of radical equality before God leads us to think no less of someone regardless of their physical appearance, religious beliefs, cultural background, or anything else. It is through virtues such as charity, mercy, and justice that our human dignity is preserved. By living through these virtues and realizing how to effectively instill them within us, we are able to live a virtuous life. This paper argues that although issues involving embryonic stem cell research are controversial, research in this area is typically permissible for further development in the medical field when looking to preserve human dignity. In order to defend this thesis, this paper will be structured into three sections as followed: the description of embryonic stem cell research, the development of a moral lens, and the moral argument and analysis of this case.

By definition, discovery implies uncertainty, but progress cannot exist without either. They are codependent upon each other. Whether the use of embryonic stem cells is truly the destruction of human life and whether the potential of human life is equal to the possible realization of that potential is also codependent. Neither of these questions can be answered without simultaneously answering the other. Arguments from both sides of this issue are extremely valid, which is why it has become such a difficult question for anyone with consideration of the opinions of others to answer. That being said, a rational stance on this issue must incorporate views from both sides, as well as logic to keep from becoming indifferent. A moderate policy should be adopted by the United States, one that allows the funding of research on spare embryos from IVF as opposed to their disposal, and one that allows for the use of Nuclear Transfer for the purpose of therapeutic cloning as long as the eggs are obtained from willing donors, though a policy that does not permit the production of human embryos strictly for research besides in the context of therapeutic cloning. This policy can be justified through the logic of Kantian Ethics, John Harris’s, “Stem Cells, Sex, and Procreation,” John P. Lizza’s, “Potentiality and Human Embryos,” and a public opinion expressed by Ian Wilmut.

This report describes how ethics involving embryos has been ongoing for 25 years but has significantly increased with the stem cell controversy. Another issue brought up by this report is whether or not federal funds should be spent on an issue that is so ethically

Embryonic stem cell research is a controversial topic nationwide, because of its clash of ethical and moral values. Many people, including those suffering from diseases that this research is seeking to cure, do not believe in killing a living embryo in order to advance research and science.

There are people who disagree on the morality of using human embryonic cells, and stem cell research in general, nonetheless. Some stubborn pro-life organizations insist that the destruction of the “blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg” (White), is on the same level as murdering a human child and is entirely immoral and unacceptable. Even if these embryonic cells are being used to save lives and cure diseases, they believe it is wrong because the cells were taken at the cost of a

Through change and uttermost struggle, the people who care about a subject always seem to push through for what they believe in. For the sake of Embryonic Stem Cell research, the advocates tried their best to show the advancements stem cells may withhold, and for the people who disagree with the research, always seemed to put a new light on the subject, simply humanizing the research. Although the destruction of a human embryo is not something many people would view as ethical, it is something that could hold much promise for those who suffer from terminal illnesses (Sherley). When the miracle of assisting those who could not reproduce children through In Vitro Fertilization transpired the world of stem cell research was acquired (Tauer 924).

Currently, the use of research is to understand how the body develops from a fertilized egg and investigating how to produce more cells (Cox 1). However, there are limitations because of the uncertainty of how to fully control differentiation of these type of cells (Cox 1). Although they have solely been used for these specific expenditures, the problem still lies with “murdering” human lives. The people who support the embryonic stem cell research claim that the week-old blastocysts are only clusters of cells; therefore, they do not constitute as human beings (Rebecca 2). This is where they are wrong. They believe that because these cells, embryonic stem cells, are not “human”, they should not have the same human rights granted to the more advanced stages of cell growth. This is unjust because once the fetus starts to develop in the mother’s womb, it is a child with a life. The implementation of the embryo into the uterus wall around six days after fertilization counts as having life (Hug 1). Overall, embryos possess the same rights and are thus entitled to the same protections as are afforded to other human beings and in 2006, President Bush had ordered the limited funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells because of its violation of human rights (“Euro Stem Cell” 2). This demonstrates the seriousness of embryos having

When an embryo should be considered an actual human has a variety of answers, “some have sought to reject that the early human embryo is a human being, according to one view, the cells that comprise the early embryo are a bundle of homogeneous cells that exist in the same membrane but do not form a human organism because the cells do not function in a coordinated way to regulate and preserve a single life”.(Siegel)

While few can debate the potential “miracle cure” aspect that seems to be wrapped within stem cell research, the method for obtaining such cells has been a topic for debate. The process of extracting pluripotent cells destroys their host embryo, and as yet, no pluripotent cells have been found in older adult tissues. Opponents of research on embryonic cells claim that embryos – from the moment that fertilization occurs – are sentient human beings and should therefore be afforded the same protections against abuse as anyone else (“The Cases For”). But what if a method were readily available were viable stem cells could be extracted from an embryo in a manner that would not deny life – however such life were defined – to the unborn fetus? What if such a potential solution could ease the minds of not only those who oppose stem cell research but also help to quell the dispute of another “Do Not Kill” issue – abortion?

Lee and George support their argument by providing three important facts that differentiate a human embryo is, in fact, a human being. First, they say that sex cells and somatic cells are part of a larger organism while the human embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature (14). Secondly, they say that the embryo is human and has all the characteristics of a human being but the sex and somatic cells are genetically and functionally different because they cannot develop

Embryonic stem cells research has challenged the moral ethics within human beings simply because the point at which one is considered a “human,” is still under debate and practically incapable to make a decision upon.

Embryonic stem cell research is a highly controversial topic in today's society, this kind of stem cell commits to regenerate any type of tissue. Unfortunately, Embryonic Stem Cell Research has a dark side. To obtain these cells will kill the embryo automatically. In other words, the acquirement of the Human Embryonic Stem Cell includes performing an abortion. To obtain these cells, it would kill the embryo. This has created controversy since abortion is such a divisive topic. Politicians are uneasy to take sides. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell issue is today's Pandora's Box due to all the unwittingly chaos that it can bring to our lives. By having this new option available in the medical world,

Contrarily, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. In addition, leftover embryos could be given with permission and

The opponents of embryonic stem cells stick to the belief that destroying one human’s life to save and cure others is not worth it because it makes you wonder, where will the line be drawn? Can the killing and experimentation of homeless people, for example, be justified by the possibility of saving a few Alzheimer’s patients’ lives? Will the world allow the destruction of the elderly just to save the younger generation? The opponents of embryonic stem cells realize that if the world begins using embryonic stem cells to make everyone healthier, than there is no telling what the world is willing to sacrifice in order for them to survive and if the world does go down that path, who gets to decide who deserves to live or die? (“Using Embryos is Immoral”). The destructive view that the world has towards embryonic stem cells is made evident not only by the ongoing debate about whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used but also by the restriction placed on embryonic