However, ethics comes into play when we are faced with the legitimate question regarding either side of the positive and negative opinion, the problem truly lies in the actually source of the stem ells. PRO Those who are considered pro-choice regard that human Persephone to occur much later in the pregnancy. Thus, killing a recently fertilized embryo is not murder of a human person. In April of 2000, Senators Arleen Specter and Tom Harkin introduced the Stem Cell Research Act of 2000. This would allow federal researchers to extract stem cells from embryos. They believe this research to be ethical and definitely beneficial. In fertility clinics, women are given a choice of what to do with unused fertilized embryos; they can be discarded, donated to research r frozen for future use.
Under the specific supervision, scientist believe that they should be allowed to take these cells only from women who freely consent to their use for research. ” Is it more ethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives? . Stem cell treatment has already begun in some parts of the world. Cells have been taken from umbilical cords and become healthy red cells used to cure sickle-cell anemia. OPPOSE However, in retrospect, there is a strong religious lobby opposing embryonic stem cell research.
The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics argues the case like this ” The destruction of human embryonic life is unnecessary for medical progress, as alternative methods of obtaining human stem cells and of repairing and regenerating human tissue exist and continue to be developed. It is these people that feel that a few-day old embryo is a human person, and by extracting its stem cells kills the embryo, an act that they consider to be murder. Basically, any procedure that injures or kills an embryo is assault or murder of a human. It does not matter whether the stem cell extraction is done by an employee of a private company and sold to the government. Either way, a human person has been murdered in order to supply cells. As long as embryos are destroyed as part of the research enterprise, researchers using embryonic stem cells ( and those who fund them) will be complicit in the death Of embryos. CONCLUSION believe that both sides present equally legitimate arguments.
Not only could an organ transplant be done without the sacrifice of another person losing an organ, it also has the ability to test millions of potential drugs and medicines, without the use of animals or human testers. But recently, an international scientific consensus recognizes that human embryos are biologically human beings beginning at fertilization and acknowledges the physical continuity of human growth and development from the one-cell stage forward. It is very hard to stake claim on any particular opinion. But that’s just what questioning the ethics of a subject matter does. It challenges your brain to the fullest by making you see all sides.
Science and religion are polar opposites. While one sees God as the Creator of life, the other believes a cluster of atoms caused a ‘ Big Bang’. Both sides sincerely want the best for humanity; it is just their personal and cultural views that interfere sometimes with any legitimate miracles.
The longer this debate over the ethics of stem cell research continues, millions will continue to suffer. Those who are opposed to destroying embryos want to find some other way of finding stem cells. But that could take years, years that millions of people will continue to suffer, and in some cases, years they might not have to wait.
