Dear Students,
To really impress me, go find out some current information about the state of the legal challenges to the Obama Administration's lifting of the ban/restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, referenced in this case. Otherwise, comment as normal.
This is a very touch subject for many people around the world. I believe it is O.K. to use stem cells if the embryo is already DESTROYED. I do not agree with stem cell research if the embryo has not yet been destroyed, but is intended to be for the purpose of stem cell research. To me, if an embryo is already deceased, it is the same concept as grown people donating their bodies to science. They have passed on and have no further use for them, but the same thing goes with adults. I believe in someone helping science with their body, as my mother was always wanting to try new procedures to lessen her seizures, however she did not intend to die for the procedures. As I recently learned, people who do fertility treatment can have eight living embryo's, but only choose to implant one, and you must in a way construct a "will" for the other embryo's and in most cases, if the parent did not want the embryo's implanted in someone else, it was either use them for research or destroy them. This is where the issue gets tricky and where most people have strong opinions formulating. I would rather the embryo's have a chance at life than be destroyed, but if the only options are research or death, I would have to choose research as much as it hurts me to say.
ReplyDeleteHere is one record looking at a different perspective on all the controvery over the stem cell research: http://www.speroforum.com/a/40974/Christian-Medical-Association-calls-on-Obama-to-end-embryonic-stemcell-research
ReplyDeleteI agree directly with Camille. Stem cell research is a very touchy subject that is highly relevant in the news today. I agree with stem cell research only if the fetus is deceased. I do not believe in using embryos strictly for the use of stem cell research and not allowing a child to be born because of it. Although I have a broader knowledge of stem cell research, I do not know enough to get in and break down the minor stipulations. I think stem cell with an already deceased child should be aloud because it has the possibility of being found to help various medical conditions. Research must be allowed in order for any results to be obtained, but once again killing an embryo is unacceptable for this research
I think the Bush federal funding policy is morally defensible. Since more than sixty embryos have already been destroyed to test on, there is not much we can do to save those. I can go either way on this subject. On one hand, when the nuclei of the egg and sperm join together,the development of a baby beings. I am very pro-life and as a Christian, would find stem cell research to be abortion. However, embryos can be used for research to find cures that people have been trying to fight for years. Hopefully after we discuss this in class and listen to other people's opinions, I can develop a better opinion on this issue of my own.
ReplyDeleteI have the same views as Nellie toward stem cell research being along the lines as abortion if the embryo is alive. I also can say that I lean towards Camille’s opinion that stem cell research is okay if, and only if, the embryo is deceased and in no chance of recovery. I think that Bush’s federal funding can be defensible, but since we are already using sixty embryos ,we can’t really do anything in our power to stop the research that has already been started. Even being Catholic, I feel like you shouldn’t kill an unborn embryo, but if it was for the greater good to know that research was done to a deceased embryo I feel that it is okay. Although this issue may bring up other arguments in this field, I don’t know enough about stem cell research to prove why or why not this way is better than the other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most people on this blog in saying that I agree with stem cell research only when the embryo is already deceased. One thought that I keep coming back to is why do we have to use viable embryos if we can do the same research on already deceased embryos. I do not have much education on this subject but I feel that would be a happy medium, if it could happen. Since President Obama came in to office he stopped the ban that President Bush put in to effect. In August of this year, the district court ruled an injunction against President Obama's stem cell policy.
ReplyDeleteThis article is about what researchers have been doing since the court issued that injunction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031402353.html?wprss=rss_health
This may be a horrible comment but what if planned parenthood offered an option of donating the aborted pregnancies if they fall into the right time frame (blastocysts, when the stem cells haven't differentiated yet). Since abortion is still legal couldn't some good come out of such a horrible loss of life. I have to agree that Bush's decision on not wasting the stem cells that already exist from demised embryos is morally defensible. However, to create new stem cells, although I cannot morally justify it. To create a life that you never intended to keep is just wrong to me. However, being in the medical field, I realize the importance of research to make medical advances.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that what cgreen said is a horrible comment. It makes sense to me that something good can come out of something like abortion, but we must be careful that the decision to abort was made independently of the decision to donate the embryo.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I agree that the Bush policy is acceptable. There is no point for withdrawing funding from embryos who are already destroyed. To do that would be to make the "death" of the embryos in vain. To me, though, it is also okay to use embryos created for reproductive purposes who are going to be destroyed anyway for research. This is a way for some meaning to come out of the destruction of the embryo. This does not mean that I would consent to the destruction of my embryos, but it is okay for others who do not share my values to consent to the donation of their embryos for research.
As many people have already stated above, I only agree with stem cell research if the embroyo has deceased or been destroyed. I do not believe that that an embroyo should not be given the right to life if it would otherwise be a viable baby. However, if the embroyo has already deceased or been destroyed, it would be morally acceptable to use the embroyo for stem cell research. As Camille stated, this would be similar to adults choosing to donate their bodies to science after their passing. In this sense, I believe stem cell research is acceptable, but never in a case that would terminate an otherwise viable fetus.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very conflicting argument. I think with regard to my humanity,religion, and ethics based opinions, it is acceptable to carry out embryonic stem cell research when the embryo has been destroyed. Even though the embryonic stem cell research may seem as a violation to the sanctity of life and may seem as 'killing', it also may or has helped find cures to various diseases today. The embryonic stem cells are pluripotent meaning they can differentiate into almost all cell types of the body. This could help find cures for untreatable maladies around the world today. Just to recap our memoir on stem cells characteristics: they are undifferentiated, self-renewing and give rise to committed progenitor cells. Therefore there are two types of stem cells: Embryonic and Adult stem cells. The Adult stem cells on the contrary only differentiate into different cell types of their tissue origin hence are not productive in determination of cure for certain ailments, besides they are less potent than the Embryonic stem cells. Even though it is understandable the measures that the Bush administration took in banning the embryonic stem cell research in 2001, it should be taken into consideration that stem cell research has helped revolutionize the medical industry, especially by helping find cures to certain agonizing diseases. Researchers have used mostly the animal model: mice, since they are at least inexpensive and resemble the human body system BUT NOT 100%. This is why there are certain researches that may not be carried out using the mice or even primates and only human embryonic stem cells (destroyed ones). The Obama administration will face obstacles from the people's opinions against Embryonic stem cell research since many view it as 'murder of life' and may be related to 'arbotion' while others look at it in the perspective that 'cure for life can only be determined from life itself' and many cures may be determined for most of the killing, paralysing diseases we are experiencing today. Humanity, Religion and Moral Ethics play a major role in the people who proposes or are against the continuation of the Embryonic Stem Cell Research today. This will continue to be debatable issue......
ReplyDeleteI as well, agree with most peope above. Stem Cell research could lead to some great discoveries, but it should only be used on the deceased. Stem Cell research should not be done to a viable baby. Babies are a miracle and they should not be used for science unless they are deceased and the parents decided to make the decision. There are plenty of other ways to obtain stem cells, there should be no reaseon to have to extract the stem cells from a viable baby. Stem cells can be taken from the unbilical cord and are second in the rank of how "good" the cells are. I do believe in science and coming up with new discoveries, but those discoveries should only be made without harm to others. According to the Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim, new human lives will not be created for the sole purpose of experimentation. Hopefully that is truthful.
ReplyDeleteLike most of my classmates I feel Bush’s federal funding policy concerning stem cell research is morally defensible. Stem cell research may provide different therapies and cures, which could change the lives of people suffering from diseases and disorders that previously may have not had options in treatment. This research is done on previously destroyed embryos that were not created with the intention to be used for research. The funding policy is restricted to preexisting stem cell lines which reassures the fact that the embryos destroyed were not created to be researched. I believe that stem cells can be a promising research endeavor for the medical field but like the previous postings I agree that a viable embryo should not be destroyed in order to be researched.
ReplyDeleteI am very pro-life. However, that being said, I agree with the comments that say that if an embryo has already been destroyed, it should not be wasted. Using the existing line of stem cells should be permitted, but I do not think that more embryos should be destroyed for testing.
ReplyDeleteI was glad that Judge Lamberth stopped the use of additional stem cells that the Obama Administration had deemed legal. However, I am hopeful that stem cell research will soon sway away from embryonic research altogether. Numerous alternative sources of stem cells exist, and although these do not all provide the variety of options that embryonic stems cells do, they should not be rejected. And new research is continually attempting to find ways to do without embryonic stem cells. A report in Science Daily two weeks ago revealed that scientists have discovered a way to regress adult skin cells into cells that behave like embryonic stem cells: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101007123111.htm
I am hopeful that in the future, more alternatives like this will become available, and embryonic stem cell use will become a thing of the past.
I fo sho agree with the peeps above. I think George's federal funding policy is morally defensible. This blog is not intended to display selfishness, but as a person with a chronic disease, it would be really nice to go through a day without taking 8 pills for the rest of my life, if not more. My life is good, and my disease is relatively minor, and I KNOW that people have it way worse than I do. But if I could wake up one day and have a doctor tell me that they would hook a brother up with an organ that performs at a level above mine and I wouldn’t have to take any pills, it would be nice. I am pro-life and I do believe that abortions are horrible. But, like Christy said, if a doc is gonna abort the pregnancy before the stem cells differentiate, why waste them? Like I said, not intended to be selfish but I think that it would be selfish to waste resources for medical advances for people with less than average physiological functioning.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else stated above, I think Bush's federal funding policy is morally defensible since there were already people using the stem cells. Why let the stem cells go to waste since it can help advance new medical treatment? However, I do not believe that innocent lives should be taken just so researchers can have their stem cells, even if it would be put to good use. I think Christy had a good idea of obtaining blastocysts from aborted pregnancies even though I am prolife. I don't agree with abortions, but I can't stop the women from getting since it is legal. I have never really thought about that before, but I think that would be a lot better than taking the stem cells from a deceased embryo. Also, like Brittany said there are better ways to get stem cells like from the umbilical cord. Bush's policy is not too restrictive or permissive. He made sure that from that date on stem cells should not be obtained from dead embryos, simple as that.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100928/sc_nm/us_usa_stemcells_1
ReplyDeleteLike others I do believe that stem cells can lead to several miraculous discoveries and advances in the medical and science fields but there should be some moral boundaries and limitations. Research should not be done on living or viable embryos because that is harming or killing something that is still living and if that were to be fully grown then its like murdering a child or adult and that is both morally and lawfully wrong. Doing research on destroyed cells though in my mind is morally ok as long as they were not destroyed for the sole purpose of research and the consent was received from the correct people. Along with the embryos the funding should also be available because if it is not then no advances can be made to better our healthcare and healthcare all over the world.
Along with everyone else, I also agree that Bush's federal funding policy is morally defensible. I agree with the statement that the embryos that have already been destroyed at some point should not be wasted, but people should not destroy the embryos just so they can use them for testingsted.
ReplyDeleteStem cell research can help provide different studies that can help people out with certain diseases. Maybe one day they can find cures for people so they wont have to be dealing with things day in and day out. like Scott said he would love waking up not having to take so many pills. And one day, with stem cell research we can find cures or just help people out in certain ways throughout their life.
In this case Bush has a point on doing research on stem cells already in existance from embryos. I also agree with no further extraction of stem cells from embryos. The thing I dont agree with is why would you use the sixty lines in existance if one cannot obtain anymore. For example say they find a cure to cancer with these stem cells. They only have a limited supple of theses stem cells so once they are gone there aren't anymore embryos to obtain them from, therefore why conduct research using material that will run out. It's similar to the oil shortage now and searching for alternative fuels. Overall I think they should use the research money on finding another way, more moral, to obtain stem cells rather than spending it on an unrenewable resource.
ReplyDeleteIn this case i believe the Bush federal funding is not morally defensible. Similar to what was said in a previous opinion, if they find something in a embryonic cell that they want to further research or believe they will find something then they will just try to go on with the reseach using more embryonic cells and causing there to not be an end to the research. The policy is not very restrictive and is to permissive for the same reason.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10stem.html
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Bush's statements are morally defensible. There are many things that can be found using this research. However, I do not believe in taking a possible life to do so. So, the idea of using non-viable embryos for research, then I am for it.
Also, I think Christy's comment is a good idea. It is better to use those aborted babies for research than just letting them be wasted.
If the embryos are already destroyed, then I feel that it should be okay because the only other option would be to throw them in the trash. I feel that it was a good compromise, but I'm unsure if I feel that it's the best idea.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if the embryos are going to just be thrown away or destroyed, then they might as well be used for a purpose. They serve no purpose if they're just tossed away. At least they would be used for something. I am really on the fence when it comes to subjects like this. I understand where both sides come from but I don't know where I stand.
ReplyDelete