From the monks practice of reincarnation to the Native American medicine man, civilization have searched for loop holes to cheat death and have gone to spontaneous measures to improve life. Modern day medicine has saved the life of thousands and given even more a healthier way of living. However, throughout the course of history, the practice of healing has taken a drastic change from a once religious threshold to a more scientific one. People hold more faith in a needle then they do in Allah, Buddha or the Lord. There is no considerable fault in this until we begin to forget our roots, morals and beliefs. Ethics, the reflection of almost all religion, has become jeopardized in the sense of today’s breakthrough medical techniques, to be more specific, stem cell research. Stem cells are the foundation of life, which form in a human embryo four days following conception. Experts suggest that stem cells have the potential to enhance and even save lives, but at the expense of killing an already fertilized organ. Is today’s society willing to put their moral beliefs at risk, to potentially save the life of another?
There was a time when the word embryo was related to incidences such as fertility clinic mix ups, and cloning experiment. However, new technology raises a more ethical and political perspective around this comparatively trivial issue. Using spare embryos that were created with the intention of attempting to have a child, is somehow different from creating embryos with the intention of extracting their stem cells. For those who view embryos as human lives deserving of the same respect as a child, research that kills embryos is no more acceptable than would be research that kills adults.
... stem cells, derived from human embryos, are the kind that President Bush agonized so publicly over last summer before deciding to fund limited research ... would be a massive medical campaign launched to save these 'lives.' Moreover, these pre implantation embryos often split off to become two or ...
The U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops oppose the research as “immoral, illegal, and unnecessary. They say that life is sacred from the moment of conception. The opposite perspectives are those who view embryos as a collection of cells similar to other human tissue, and research is acceptable and relatively uncontroversial. The Presbyterian Church USA approves the research when the goals are, “compelling and unreachable by other means.” Comparing to an abortion, which is legal in most states, embryos even farther along the line are being killed. However, these were conceived accidentally, which is more, in my opinion, understandable then manifesting life which is destined for death.
At what stage of the embryonic growth cycle can be measures as a living, feeling life? Surely the nervous system is not functional at this point, but how about the concept of a soul? From the religious standpoint, every human life is given a spirit which in theory makes the body alive. Certainly I cannot be led to believe that four day old cells akin to human tissue are capable of spiritual status. In a world where controversy of whether or not a superior being even exists is evident, is it apparent that two or more very distinct sides rise to this debate. Coincidentally, this issue is even splitting up a group that usually stands together. Pro-life conservatives are coming down hard on each side of this issue, where some believe that stem cell research is actually pro-life, for it can save lives.
... about the scientific use of tissue from the human embryos and ramifications of basic research in human stem cells. Therefore, it is important to promote continued ... stem cells derived from adults. But to obtain stem cells from a human embryo requires the removal of the inner cell mass which terminates the life of that embryo. ...
I , for one, am indifferent towards this particular religious subject. After extensive research, I have discovered that the embryos generated for research are, I fact, grown in Petri dishes, thus will never completely develop into a human life. Therefore, in my opinion, we are not raping the god-given right for life from an embryo with no potential of developing into a human. Whether or not this research is unethical depends on the particular person’s religious beliefs and opinions concerning the concepts of life behind the stem cell matter. Surely it would be immoral for an individual to destroy an isolated fertilized egg, if they considered it to enjoy the full standing of personhood.
When I began researching this topic, I was quite undistinguished concerning the subject. I felt that manifesting life for death was against anything I believed to be just in this world. Now that I realize the promised embryos hold, I see stem cell research as a form of investment towards humanity. The painless death of a theoretically living organ can possibly someday save the lives of thousands. Surely, even antagonists cannot make a fully honest decision until they find themselves in a situation where stem cells can possibly allow them to walk again, give them a new kidney, or save their life. Only then can we begin to realize its true potential.