The truth about stem cell research is that the benefits outweigh the risks. President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on March 9th, 2009 that would lift the ban on federal funding for this research. In his words, “Our government has forced a false choice between sound science and moral values”. He acknowledges that many thoughtful and decent people would disagree with this statement and that their concerns are respectable. Yet, Obama knows that the potential of this research is supported by a majority of Americans. According to the National Institute for Health, stem cells could one day assist in transplant and treatment of many diseases. Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are typically 5 days old. These cells can create stem cell “lines”, which can grow without limit, last forever, and be developed into many different cell types. Although there is use for other kinds of stem cells, such as genetically reprogrammed adult cells, they pose different challenges. Studying embryonic stem cells may show us how they transform into specialized cells. This would allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors in cell development that cause medical conditions such as cancer and birth defects. With stem cells, scientists may be able to create transplantation medicine or modify cells to overcome rejection from the patient’s immune system. Stem cells may also provide a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, burns, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis. Much of stem cell research is fairly new; experiments with them began in 1998 and human clinical trials in 2009. But that does not mean that it should be taken lightly. Life-saving vaccines and pioneering cancer treatments were not created overnight. America must support its great scientists in the painstaking and costly research. Americans should not be concerned that they will either have to spend too much money or lose scientists to other countries. They should join the fight to cure devastating diseases that children, parents, friends, and other loved ones face all around the world. As President Obama says, regardless of politics or ideology, we should care for each other and work to ease human suffering. He promises that with stem cell research we will seek treatments and cures actively and urgently. The research will be supported only when scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted because there is no room for misuse or abuse. The government will never allow cloning for human reproduction and the moral debate concerning embryos may one day be settled. The ethical concerns began long before stem cell research and since the use of abortion in ancient Greece. These questions form a completely different topic for discussion and have many different answers. One scientific viewpoint says that an early embryo is not yet a human organism until day 16 after fertilization. That is because the homogenous cells do not yet function in a coordinated way or have substantial cell differentiation. Therefore, if the embryonic stem cell is derived around the 5th day of development, it is not considered killing a human being. Other scientific viewpoints are similar or completely opposite. And although laws and religions of the world prohibit killing, there is no clear answer as to whether an embryo is a human with the right to life. It is all a matter of opinion but there is no doubt that the possibilities are endless in stem cell research.
Although stem cell research can be beneficial it is not ethical. You mentioned that it is not considered to be a process that kills a human being. I would have to disagree. Opponents of research on embryonic cells, including many religious and anti-abortion groups, stress that embryos are human beings with the same rights and therefore are entitled to the same protections against abuse as anyone else. Life starts at the moment of conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, since a distinct organism has come into being. The destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human life. This reasoning can be summed up by the fact that, once an egg is fertilized it will develop into a fully developed adult. Conception marks the beginning of human life or the presence of a soul. There are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research: the use of adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in all tissues of the growing human being and also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction, death of some of the heart tissue. Adult stem cell research may be able to make great advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research. I don’t support the practice of any stem cell research, but the use of adult stem cells, rather than embryonic, is more beneficial and ethical in my opinion.
You said, “Americans should not be concerned that they will either have to spend too much money or lose scientists to other countries. They should join the fight to cure devastating diseases that children, parents, friends, and other loved ones face all around the world.” Those who are opposed to this research believe that their tax dollars should not go to supporting the research regardless of whether or not the research is permitted. If one finds this research unethical they should not have to have their tax dollars go to supporting this. In an interview on God Morning America, Mel Gibson said, “I'm for stem cell research. I think it can do a lot of good. When I heard that the cloning of human embryos will be used in the process I did more research, and I have an ethical problem with that. Why do I, as a taxpayer, have to fund something I believe is unethical?"
Another topic that you discussed was how President Obama said regardless of politics or ideology, we should care for each other and work to ease human suffering. He promises that with stem cell research we will seek treatments and cures actively and urgently. What if someone didn’t support stem cell research? If an opponent of this topic were sick and was given the option to use stem cells harvested from the cloning of human embryos, they would refuse them. This shows that we need a more ethical way of helping sick people because stem cells cannot help everyone if they don’t agree with the process. Sure stem cell research could be saving lives, but it also is taking lives at the same time.
Christianity plays a big role on my opinion of stem cell research. I am a Christian who believes that life begins at conception and that a human embryo is a human life. Therefore, I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. Not only that, but I believe it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans, who believe life is sacred, and use it to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. Millions of pro-life Americans believe that life is sacred, and I along with them was deeply troubled by President Obama’s executive order eliminating restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research not only because it destroys human life, but because it ignores the advances that have been made in adult stem-cell research. Privately funded embryonic stem-cell research has always been legal in the United States. What makes this executive order so offensive to so many is the fact that, thanks to science itself, there are better alternatives that uphold the sanctity of life.
Over the past two years, scientific breakthroughs have provided embryonic stem-cell research no longer used, effectively removing any perceived need to destroy human embryos in the name of science. Adult stem cells have been used to treat an estimated 11,000 patients in the United States in the past two years alone, and over 70 diseases, including Parkinson's and diabetes, have been treated using adult stem cells. But that's not all. By adding strands of genetic material to adult skin cells, researchers were able to turn normal skin cells into cells that are biologically identical to embryonic stem cells. These altered cells are known as induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, and unlike embryonic stem cells, iPS cells do not require the destruction of human eggs or embryos. These reprogrammed cells have equal or greater potential to heal unhealthy tissue or combat disease in human organs. One of the greatest advantages of using pluripotent stem cells over embryonic stem cells is the ability to generate stem-cell lines from patients with specific genetic diseases, allowing scientists to use customized, patient-specific stem cells when researching and treating diseases.
Ethical stem-cell research is a marvelous and wonderful exploration of human cells that will lead to more life saving discoveries. However, it makes little sense to spend the tax dollars of Americans to fund morally wrong and outdated methods. Not only are iPS cells more easily obtainable, but they are also more cost-efficient and effective.
There is no way to decide that stem cell research is absolutely ethical. Similarly, there is no clear answer as to whether an embryo is a human with rights. Therefore, your points are valid. Yet, I must continue to support stem cell research and remind you that the ethics of the topic are based solely on opinion. If religious and anti-abortion groups believe that embryos are human beings who have rights and protection against abuse, then why are they silent about the use of embryos for in-vitro fertilization in over 360 labs in the United States. When a woman uses only 2 of the embryos in an attempt to become pregnant, the 20 or so spare embryos are commonly discarded or kept alive indefinitely until an operator error or equipment malfunction destroys them. If you consider an embryo a person, wouldn’t you be more strongly opposed to this? And if you are not concerned for the human rights of the embryo but instead the respect that it deserves, wouldn’t you consider this a terrible waste? The clients must be explained the option of donating their excess embryos to research. Religious and political figures can sometimes only supply their followers with their personal opinions. Sources show that no religious text states that an embryo is a person who should not be killed. And it obvious through history that lawful rights are not always based on what is ethical. A simple analogy is a sufficient glance at the difference between an embryo and a fully developed person. Although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that the loss of an acorn to a hungry squirrel should be treated as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree fallen in a storm. Just because every person began life as an embryo, does not prove that embryos are persons. This is not saying that the human embryo does not deserve respect or to be used with care. It is simply another way to dismiss the unethical concerns of stem cell research. In response to your statement that adult stem cells are an equal alternative to embryonic stem cells, that is not consistent with the scientific research available through the National Institutes of Health. Embryonic stem cells are different from adult stem cells because they have not begun to specialize. They are pluripotent, which means that they have the potential to develop into any of the 220 cell types in the human body. Adult stem cells, at their best, are only multipotent and create few types of cells. That is the explanation as to why adult stem cells were successfully used to replace heart tissue. Your idea to take money and resources from embryonic stem cell research for adult stem cell research instead is preposterous. And it seems strange that you would say that you don’t support the practice of any stem cell research immediately after that. With basic knowledge, it is clear to see that the discovery and application of adult stem cells or induced stem cells would not be possible without embryonic stem cells. Without knowing how to isolate a stem cell from an embryo, scientists would never be able to understand the complicated process of deriving a stem cell from an adult nor the ways to induce embryonic stem cells through genetic reprogramming. Even if the adult stem cell were capable of becoming pluripotent, there would be much difficulty in applying them to treatment. As I said before, by studying the natural development of embryonic stem cells, we can observe how they transform into specialized cells. This is critical to understanding and correcting the errors in cell development that cause medical conditions. It is true that taxpayers who disagree with stem cell research do not rejoice in federal funding. But everyone has hope for lessening human suffering, and all American taxpayers have the right to vote, speak out, or leave the country. As for a person who needs a specific medical treatment but is against it, they have the right to refuse it. It is better to have one cure that few consider unethical than to have no cure at all.
Kelly, your quote from Obama fits well. It shows ethos to your agrument, and acknowledges the opposition to your argument. You do a good balance showing how the good outweighs the bad with horrible diseases that people suffer from. Bringing up in-vitro fertilization brings up a good point, and I was surprised that that many embryos are discarded. You also do a good job bringing up that no where in religious texts it says that an embryo is necessarily a human life and explaining how versatile embryonic cells are.
Chloe, you did a good job bringing up tax dollars and how Americans shouldn't have to support something they don't believe in. Your use of ethos with the Mel Gibson quote worked well. It's good that you're a Christian & have strong beliefs, but someone who isn't Christian may not take your argument seriously and it could hurt your ethos. You also bring up a good point on that we should try spending more money on adult stem cells since they have seen advances and it's less controversial.
It’s clear that stem cell research is a huge debate that is hard to agree on. One thing that stood out to me was Chloe’s comment about how people would have to pay tax dollars to fund stem cell research. It stood out because people who are against it definitely don’t want their tax dollars to fund it. And people who are for it might change their mind once they find out that their tax dollars are being used to fund stem cell research. Talking about religion isn’t a bad idea, but Chloe brought her religion and her views into the debate way too much. Different religions have different beliefs and traditions. So if someone with a different religion reads the debate, they might not totally agree with her, because they have different religions. Moreover, I feel like Kelly did a great job on admitting that Chloe made some good points but then making rebuttals. For example, Chloe talks about how religious and anti-abortion groups believe that embryos are human beings who have rights, she goes on to say “Then why are they silent about the use of embryos for in vitro fertilization in over 360 labs in the United States.” Being good at counterarguments helps Kelly’s credibility. It shows she know a lot about her topic and that she’s very trustworthy.
The truth about stem cell research is that the benefits outweigh the risks. President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on March 9th, 2009 that would lift the ban on federal funding for this research. In his words, “Our government has forced a false choice between sound science and moral values”. He acknowledges that many thoughtful and decent people would disagree with this statement and that their concerns are respectable. Yet, Obama knows that the potential of this research is supported by a majority of Americans.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the National Institute for Health, stem cells could one day assist in transplant and treatment of many diseases. Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are typically 5 days old. These cells can create stem cell “lines”, which can grow without limit, last forever, and be developed into many different cell types. Although there is use for other kinds of stem cells, such as genetically reprogrammed adult cells, they pose different challenges. Studying embryonic stem cells may show us how they transform into specialized cells. This would allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors in cell development that cause medical conditions such as cancer and birth defects. With stem cells, scientists may be able to create transplantation medicine or modify cells to overcome rejection from the patient’s immune system. Stem cells may also provide a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, burns, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis.
Much of stem cell research is fairly new; experiments with them began in 1998 and human clinical trials in 2009. But that does not mean that it should be taken lightly. Life-saving vaccines and pioneering cancer treatments were not created overnight. America must support its great scientists in the painstaking and costly research. Americans should not be concerned that they will either have to spend too much money or lose scientists to other countries. They should join the fight to cure devastating diseases that children, parents, friends, and other loved ones face all around the world. As President Obama says, regardless of politics or ideology, we should care for each other and work to ease human suffering. He promises that with stem cell research we will seek treatments and cures actively and urgently. The research will be supported only when scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted because there is no room for misuse or abuse. The government will never allow cloning for human reproduction and the moral debate concerning embryos may one day be settled. The ethical concerns began long before stem cell research and since the use of abortion in ancient Greece. These questions form a completely different topic for discussion and have many different answers. One scientific viewpoint says that an early embryo is not yet a human organism until day 16 after fertilization. That is because the homogenous cells do not yet function in a coordinated way or have substantial cell differentiation. Therefore, if the embryonic stem cell is derived around the 5th day of development, it is not considered killing a human being. Other scientific viewpoints are similar or completely opposite. And although laws and religions of the world prohibit killing, there is no clear answer as to whether an embryo is a human with the right to life. It is all a matter of opinion but there is no doubt that the possibilities are endless in stem cell research.
Although stem cell research can be beneficial it is not ethical. You mentioned that it is not considered to be a process that kills a human being. I would have to disagree. Opponents of research on embryonic cells, including many religious and anti-abortion groups, stress that embryos are human beings with the same rights and therefore are entitled to the same protections against abuse as anyone else. Life starts at the moment of conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, since a distinct organism has come into being. The destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human life. This reasoning can be summed up by the fact that, once an egg is fertilized it will develop into a fully developed adult. Conception marks the beginning of human life or the presence of a soul. There are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research: the use of adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in all tissues of the growing human being and also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction, death of some of the heart tissue. Adult stem cell research may be able to make great advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research. I don’t support the practice of any stem cell research, but the use of adult stem cells, rather than embryonic, is more beneficial and ethical in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou said, “Americans should not be concerned that they will either have to spend too much money or lose scientists to other countries. They should join the fight to cure devastating diseases that children, parents, friends, and other loved ones face all around the world.” Those who are opposed to this research believe that their tax dollars should not go to supporting the research regardless of whether or not the research is permitted. If one finds this research unethical they should not have to have their tax dollars go to supporting this. In an interview on God Morning America, Mel Gibson said, “I'm for stem cell research. I think it can do a lot of good. When I heard that the cloning of human embryos will be used in the process I did more research, and I have an ethical problem with that. Why do I, as a taxpayer, have to fund something I believe is unethical?"
Another topic that you discussed was how President Obama said regardless of politics or ideology, we should care for each other and work to ease human suffering. He promises that with stem cell research we will seek treatments and cures actively and urgently. What if someone didn’t support stem cell research? If an opponent of this topic were sick and was given the option to use stem cells harvested from the cloning of human embryos, they would refuse them. This shows that we need a more ethical way of helping sick people because stem cells cannot help everyone if they don’t agree with the process. Sure stem cell research could be saving lives, but it also is taking lives at the same time.
Christianity plays a big role on my opinion of stem cell research. I am a Christian who believes that life begins at conception and that a human embryo is a human life. Therefore, I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. Not only that, but I believe it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans, who believe life is sacred, and use it to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. Millions of pro-life Americans believe that life is sacred, and I along with them was deeply troubled by President Obama’s executive order eliminating restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research not only because it destroys human life, but because it ignores the advances that have been made in adult stem-cell research. Privately funded embryonic stem-cell research has always been legal in the United States. What makes this executive order so offensive to so many is the fact that, thanks to science itself, there are better alternatives that uphold the sanctity of life.
ReplyDeleteOver the past two years, scientific breakthroughs have provided embryonic stem-cell research no longer used, effectively removing any perceived need to destroy human embryos in the name of science. Adult stem cells have been used to treat an estimated 11,000 patients in the United States in the past two years alone, and over 70 diseases, including Parkinson's and diabetes, have been treated using adult stem cells. But that's not all. By adding strands of genetic material to adult skin cells, researchers were able to turn normal skin cells into cells that are biologically identical to embryonic stem cells. These altered cells are known as induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, and unlike embryonic stem cells, iPS cells do not require the destruction of human eggs or embryos. These reprogrammed cells have equal or greater potential to heal unhealthy tissue or combat disease in human organs. One of the greatest advantages of using pluripotent stem cells over embryonic stem cells is the ability to generate stem-cell lines from patients with specific genetic diseases, allowing scientists to use customized, patient-specific stem cells when researching and treating diseases.
Ethical stem-cell research is a marvelous and wonderful exploration of human cells that will lead to more life saving discoveries. However, it makes little sense to spend the tax dollars of Americans to fund morally wrong and outdated methods. Not only are iPS cells more easily obtainable, but they are also more cost-efficient and effective.
There is no way to decide that stem cell research is absolutely ethical. Similarly, there is no clear answer as to whether an embryo is a human with rights. Therefore, your points are valid. Yet, I must continue to support stem cell research and remind you that the ethics of the topic are based solely on opinion. If religious and anti-abortion groups believe that embryos are human beings who have rights and protection against abuse, then why are they silent about the use of embryos for in-vitro fertilization in over 360 labs in the United States. When a woman uses only 2 of the embryos in an attempt to become pregnant, the 20 or so spare embryos are commonly discarded or kept alive indefinitely until an operator error or equipment malfunction destroys them. If you consider an embryo a person, wouldn’t you be more strongly opposed to this? And if you are not concerned for the human rights of the embryo but instead the respect that it deserves, wouldn’t you consider this a terrible waste? The clients must be explained the option of donating their excess embryos to research. Religious and political figures can sometimes only supply their followers with their personal opinions. Sources show that no religious text states that an embryo is a person who should not be killed. And it obvious through history that lawful rights are not always based on what is ethical. A simple analogy is a sufficient glance at the difference between an embryo and a fully developed person. Although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that the loss of an acorn to a hungry squirrel should be treated as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree fallen in a storm. Just because every person began life as an embryo, does not prove that embryos are persons. This is not saying that the human embryo does not deserve respect or to be used with care. It is simply another way to dismiss the unethical concerns of stem cell research. In response to your statement that adult stem cells are an equal alternative to embryonic stem cells, that is not consistent with the scientific research available through the National Institutes of Health. Embryonic stem cells are different from adult stem cells because they have not begun to specialize. They are pluripotent, which means that they have the potential to develop into any of the 220 cell types in the human body. Adult stem cells, at their best, are only multipotent and create few types of cells. That is the explanation as to why adult stem cells were successfully used to replace heart tissue. Your idea to take money and resources from embryonic stem cell research for adult stem cell research instead is preposterous. And it seems strange that you would say that you don’t support the practice of any stem cell research immediately after that. With basic knowledge, it is clear to see that the discovery and application of adult stem cells or induced stem cells would not be possible without embryonic stem cells. Without knowing how to isolate a stem cell from an embryo, scientists would never be able to understand the complicated process of deriving a stem cell from an adult nor the ways to induce embryonic stem cells through genetic reprogramming. Even if the adult stem cell were capable of becoming pluripotent, there would be much difficulty in applying them to treatment. As I said before, by studying the natural development of embryonic stem cells, we can observe how they transform into specialized cells. This is critical to understanding and correcting the errors in cell development that cause medical conditions. It is true that taxpayers who disagree with stem cell research do not rejoice in federal funding. But everyone has hope for lessening human suffering, and all American taxpayers have the right to vote, speak out, or leave the country. As for a person who needs a specific medical treatment but is against it, they have the right to refuse it. It is better to have one cure that few consider unethical than to have no cure at all.
ReplyDeleteKelly, your quote from Obama fits well. It shows ethos to your agrument, and acknowledges the opposition to your argument. You do a good balance showing how the good outweighs the bad with horrible diseases that people suffer from. Bringing up in-vitro fertilization brings up a good point, and I was surprised that that many embryos are discarded. You also do a good job bringing up that no where in religious texts it says that an embryo is necessarily a human life and explaining how versatile embryonic cells are.
ReplyDeleteChloe, you did a good job bringing up tax dollars and how Americans shouldn't have to support something they don't believe in. Your use of ethos with the Mel Gibson quote worked well. It's good that you're a Christian & have strong beliefs, but someone who isn't Christian may not take your argument seriously and it could hurt your ethos. You also bring up a good point on that we should try spending more money on adult stem cells since they have seen advances and it's less controversial.
You both were polite to each other too!
It’s clear that stem cell research is a huge debate that is hard to agree on. One thing that stood out to me was Chloe’s comment about how people would have to pay tax dollars to fund stem cell research. It stood out because people who are against it definitely don’t want their tax dollars to fund it. And people who are for it might change their mind once they find out that their tax dollars are being used to fund stem cell research. Talking about religion isn’t a bad idea, but Chloe brought her religion and her views into the debate way too much. Different religions have different beliefs and traditions. So if someone with a different religion reads the debate, they might not totally agree with her, because they have different religions. Moreover, I feel like Kelly did a great job on admitting that Chloe made some good points but then making rebuttals. For example, Chloe talks about how religious and anti-abortion groups believe that embryos are human beings who have rights, she goes on to say “Then why are they silent about the use of embryos for in vitro fertilization in over 360 labs in the United States.” Being good at counterarguments helps Kelly’s credibility. It shows she know a lot about her topic and that she’s very trustworthy.
ReplyDelete