Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Stem cells are non-specialized cells with the capability of developing specific cells including blood, brain, muscle, and organ cells. Once scientists discovered the increased effectiveness of embryonic stem cells, the ethical debate lead to strict regulations of embryonic stem cell research in neighboring countries. The moral principles of respecting a human life and preventing and alleviating pain prove to be hindrances in obtaining an understanding and mutual acceptance of utilizing embryonic stem cells. In terms of the Mahowald’s ethical bypass, I agree with their stipulations. Embryos that are left to die respectfully, and embryos that are killed for the purpose of research (including through abortion) are along the lines of removing viable organs from an individual after they are deceased due to uncontrollable circumstances or killing an individual as a means of harvesting their organs for personal use or benefit.

Many people argue that the moral status is influential in respecting the life of a human embryo. Viewpoints of moral status include: fertilization of the embryo, 14 days following fertilization due to the lack of a central nervous system prior to two weeks, increasing status with advances in development, and still some considering the embryo organic material lacking all moral status (Unknown, 2012). It is impossible to accommodate all views of moral principles. The benefits of embryonic stem cell research, including advancements in bio medical treatment of diseases such as spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and cancer, go up against the taking of a human life (Prentice, 2011). If the embryo is respectfully left to expire or donated for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research, it provides opportunities to ascertain medical treatments and cures. Opening up the field of embryonic research, even under such restrictions and ethically debated practices, increases the probability of establishing cures and optional treatment plans.


Prentice, D. (2011, December 4). My family doctor. Retrieved from [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Unknown. (2012, May 29). Embryonic stem cell research.org. Retrieved from [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

This is a very well written response Morgan, good job. I really believe and agree with you, though there are many moral arguments on this, it’s such a great advancement in science. There are so many benefits to this research that it would be horrible to get rid of it. People believe that this is ethically wrong because it's ending a life for another. That can't be farther from the truth, according to this article "An embryo that has not yet implanted into the uterus does not have the physiological, emotional, or physical properties that we associate with being a person"(Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma, 2011). I used that same quote in my argument but it stuck out to me. The embryos that we used are not technically people yet so it's not like it's killing a nine month year old baby. I actually read in an article that was a question article. Someone asked about if aborted babies were used and they replied “No. Cells with the potential to form embryonic cells in a lab dish only exist in these very young four to five day blastocysts. There are a fleeing cell type that disappears after that point in time. A common misconception is that the cells can come from older embryos or from aborted fetuses, which in fact is not possible.” (Myths and misconceptions about stem cell research, 2011).
I feel that it's basically no life for a better life for someone else. That is not that old at all. The babies are not even considered babies and they are not even aborted, so where is this question coming from about morality in taking a life for another? I don’t think that those who use that argument have truly researched this topic enough.

I liked when what you mentioned about the organs. It's like the same thing, these people died of certain circumstances and if these embryos die respectively, what's the difference? The diseases that it can cure or benefit that you mentioned in your article, like Parkinson's disease, is a real eye opener. It would be unfair to those who suffer to take this away for one argument on morals. Once again, great response!


Resources:

Unknown:Myths and misconceptions about stem cell research. (2011, January). Retrieved October 23, 2012, from California Institute For Regenetive Medicine: [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Unknown:Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma. (2011, March 23). Retrieved October 23, 2012, from EuroStemCell: [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

I completely agree with you Morgan. I did like your statement about not being able to please everyone in their moral standards. If the embryos are let to die off, then we should take advantage of it to further research and further technology. It is the chance to learn something we don't know about yet. I don't see a problem with doing this. There are so many more advantages than disadvantages in this situation. I thought your post was very informative and well done.