The Ethical Implications of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Technology seemingly never stops growing and changing. And why should it? Just as every human being changes with experience and age, so then do our creations. Unfortunately, it is in our collective nature as humans to be afraid of change. Change inevitably raises moral questions within us, removing us from the simplistic routine of daily life and placing us in the uncomfortable realm of controversy. When big changes happen, it's as if a fellow human has just died - it makes us re-evaluate our lives and the effect that such an event will have on them. Such is the case with embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research, in and of itself, is not a new technology. Scientists and doctors have used adult stem cells for treatments on various blood diseases for years. No one is hurt in such a situation, and the Hippocratic oath is preserved. The issue of embryonic stem cell research is different, though. Embryonic stem cells are the very basis of human tissue, and therefore can replace almost any functional tissue in the human body, whereas adult stem cells are already grown and therefore cannot be given other tasks. Scientists remove the stem cells from embryonic tissue known as blastocysts, and as a result the embryo di
George W. Bush's radio speech on August 11, 2001, did, though. Surprisingly well thought-out and delivered, Bush's speech examine nearly all of the most important points of the issue and comes to some definite conclusions regarding it. His stance was simple - we should not kill any more embryos. But, as we can do nothing about the embryos that have already been killed to create the 64 stem cell lines already present, research should continue (Bush). Of course, this is little more than a placebo for the debate - some will argue that such measures are vile, citing that a human being should never be a means to an end, and some will say that such measures are inhibiting science. But Bush's compromise is the closest thing to closure that we are likely to get at this point in the debate. One gets the feeling from reading his article that Ponnuru is a poor example of a rhetor. His limited ability to continue processing new information in an objective matter would render him insensitive to other opinions in any sort of rational argument. Ponnuru claims that his argument is based on logic, but his logic is based around the assertion that embryos, fetuses, blastocysts, and other pre-humanoid forms of a human are, in fact, human. Logic based on such assertions could not hope to sway a pro-choice advocate in the least. His writing tends to rebuke other people's arguments rather than establishing one logically by himself. Essentially, that is the problem with such an issue as embryonic stem cell research. Just as abortion brings up the issue of just when we become human beings, stem cell research brings up the issue of whether an embryo, with its potential to become human, is in fact human. And therefore, the issue cannot be easily solved. Stem cell research wields the promise of a healthier tomorrow for the suffering members of the human community. Whether we as humans can stand to bear the human cost of such research is the issue. Not as simple an issue as it at first seemed, eh? Perhaps you're already noting the similaritie
Some common words found in the essay are:
, Sullivan Republic, George Bush's, Unfortunately Ponnuru's, Latham Latham's, National Review, Lisa Latham, stem cell, cell research, stem cell research, embryonic stem, embryonic stem cell, stem cells, Ramesh Ponnuru, issue embryonic stem, logic based, issue embryonic, normal human, embryos fetuses, adult stem cells, brings issue, human human,
Approximate Word count = 1382
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
