This essay was for a college writing class from If I can locate my old essay I will post the sources. This blog was meant to keep track of our work and was not used to submit the final draft of our essays, therefore my sources were not published in the blog. Dont forget another good way of simplifying your writing is using external resources such as Evolution Writers. This will defintely make your life more easier. Embryonic stem cell research is a highly debated and sensitive topic.
Such good can come from researching this technology because many people would benefit from it. In the following paragraphs, I will explain what embryonic stem cells are and why the United States should be utilizing this medical advancement. Further, I will point out the flaws in the arguments of those who are opposed to the use of these stem cells. The United States will soon fall behind other countries who will be using this advancement if we cannot come to a logical conclusion on this vital issue.
In the human body, there are more than different cell types. All of those cell types are derived from a cluster of cells known as embryonic stem cells. These unique cells come from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst which is a young embryo approximately four to five days old. What makes these cells so very unique is that they are pluripotent, which means that they can be characterized to differentiate into any of the three germ layers which exist in the human body: The endoderm is comprised of the stomach, intestines, and the lungs.
The mesoderm is mainly the muscle, blood, and bone. This leaves the ectoderm with your skin and nervous system. These cells have the ability to repair almost any part of the human body, and that is what makes embryonic stem cells so special.
Another aspect of these cells is that they have the ability, under the right circumstances, to replicate themselves indefinitely. Since they have the ability to produce unlimited numbers of themselves and can be characterized to become any of the cell types, they can be used in medicine for regenerative therapy and medical research.
Regenerative therapy means exactly what it implies. Tissue which is lost or damaged due to disease or injury can be subsequently repaired or replaced by new tissue grown from administered embryonic stem cells. Once the stem cells are administered into the patient's body, the cells move to the damaged area, engraft and multiply, replace damaged cells, and can restore the bodily functions of that area. Some ailments which can possibly be treated with the use of embryonic stem cells are various cancers, genetic diseases, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and blindness.
There are many other conditions which could be dealt with using this incredible technology. So if major disabilities like the ones listed can be partially or fully treated, why don't we utilize them? What is the ethical issue regarding the harvesting and use of these stem cells? The main controversial issue of this type of research is the status of the human embryo. When the inner cell mass of the embryo is taken, the embryo dies. The reason for this is because the inner cell mass is what forms the three germ layers of the human body, so without it the embryo will no longer develop.
People who are against the harvesting, research, and use of these special cells are known to be "pro-life. The pro-lifers believe that the research of these stem cells "instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life. This is the first flaw in their argument. Scientifically, an embryo is not human until it starts to perform human functions. At the time of harvest, it is only a cluster of cells no different than any of the other cells in the human body. While they are correct that the embryo is a potential human, the embryo is not yet human by any scientific standards.
A popular philosopher by the name of Sam Harris makes a compelling argument for embryonic stem cell research in his article titled "The Case Against Faith. President Bush believes that human life begins at the moment of conception.
Harris states "[Bush] believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Moreover, it is worth noting that this line of argument is not necessarily absurd. As James has lucidly demonstrated, the question of faith cannot in fact be determined on purely rational grounds.
Of course, some people may argue otherwise; but this would only mean that they have become so convinced of their own faith that they no longer even recognize it as a faith, believing instead that they are being "objective" whereas it is only other people who are still subject to faith. For present purposes, the important thing to understand is that the concern regarding playing God is just as logically cogent as the proposition that God does not exist and that there is no problem with playing Him.
It is impossible to rationally prove that these Christian ethics are correct. But, by the same token, it would also be inappropriate to dismiss the concern as completely meaningless. In other words, this is a coherent mode of argumentation, insofar as the people who oppose stem cell research on these grounds are logically on par with those who support research on the basis of different "religious" beliefs.
Building off of the previous two elements of the argument against stem cell research, a third element pertains to what can be called the relationship between stem cell research and the culture of life. As Rice has discussed, the culture of life is predominantly a Catholic religious concept, although it has gained traction with other cultural conservatives within the United States as well; and the concept refers to a general ethos, or attitude, that can be applied to a range of contemporary political issues.
The basic gist of the concept is that all phases of the human lifecycle, from conception to natural death, are sacred, due to the fact that life ought to be given a take by God alone and not by human beings. This position has implications for a broad range of issues, including abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research.
The point here may not be so much whether or not one believes in God; rather, the point may pertain to what one accepts as one's fundamental ethical criterion. As the philosopher Shestov has argued, there has been an intellectual struggle since the beginning of Western civilization between the idea that life can be controlled and evaluated by reason on the one hand, and accepting life as an a priori given that serves as its own criterion on the other.
The concept of the culture of life ties the issue of stem cell research into a broader constellation of related issues. For example, one could argue that embryos "left over" from fertility treatments should be made available for stem cell research since they would go to "waste" anyway. Such a statement would be horrendous; and if anything, the conclusion that would be implied is not the moral acceptability of embryonic stem cell research but rather the moral unacceptability of fertility treatments that will almost certainly result in the destruction of embryos.
There is nothing inherently incoherent about this train of thought; much the opposite, it holds together in a remarkably cohesive way. The issue, of course, would be that the fundamental premises of the argument are often drawn from faith, which means that the argument is unlikely to meet with general or universal acceptance. One key implication of the discussion above is that the argument against stem cell research is in fact a lucid one within the context of its premises, and that attempts to suggest otherwise are likely motivated not by the coherence of the argument as such but rather by a fundamental disagreement regarding initial premises.
One issue at stake is not all stem cell research is connected to cloning or immoral actions. Some research actually implies the smaller use of stem cells found in adult bodies.
Take stem cell research used in dentistry. This technique is used to help regrow teeth, use stem cells found in bone marrow, and includes studies not attributed to aborted embryos. Moreover, another implication is that it is quite unlikely that disagreements over the morality of stem cell research will ever be resolved on purely rational grounds.
This is for the simple reason that the argument against stem cell research just like the argument for stem cell research is ultimately motivated by theological assumptions. This is not meant to imply a weakness in the argument in favor of stem cell research or the argument against stem cell research; rather, it is virtually inevitable that such assumptions will have to be made whatever one's position , given the nature of the subject matter at hand and the way that the issue touches on some of the most profound mysteries of human existence.
In summary, this essay has discussed the argument against stem cell research; and it has focused on three main elements of the argument. All elements of the argument are animated by fundamental assumptions about the nature of life, of God, and of the role of the human being within the world.
These assumptions, however, do not necessarily discredit the argument against stem cell research; and this is because the argument on the other side merely tends to make the converse assumptions, which are equally unjustified on strictly rational grounds.
In short, it can be suggested that whatever position one takes on stem cell research, one's perspective is informed not by reason alone but by one's broader worldview. Essential Readings and Interpretive Essays. Ten Years of Controversy. Ultius Blog, 05 Jan. Click here for more help with MLA citations. Click here for more help with APA citations. Click here for more help with CMS citations. Click here for more help with Turabian citations. Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing.
Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Go to Homepage current My Account my. Core offerings Browse by service type Start your search By selecting a service type.
Stem Cell Research Controversy: An Argumentative Essay Stem Cell Research Controversy: An Argumentative Essay Introduction Few topics in science and religion have been as hotly contested in recent years as stem cell research, largely because it involves the fate of, disposition of, and research on the human embryo.
For these reasons they regard Embryonic Stem Cell Research as a modern day “Pandora’s box” and believe that it is better kept “shut”. The “moral status” of an embryo is the centre of the Embryonic Stem Cell Research ethical 5/5(1).
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay Embryonic stem cell research is a highly debated and sensitive topic. Such good can come from researching this technology because many people would benefit from it. Stem cell research is one of the most controversial topics of our day. As you think about writing a persuasive essay, consider the importance of this topic and how emotive it can be to discuss both the arguments for and against. Any embryonic stem cell research essay needs to carefully weigh up the pros and cons, as well as the ethics involved.
Stem cell research and cloning are controversial. Scientists claim medical necessity. Opponents argue it's unethical. This sample expository essay explores the argument against stem cell research.. Arguments against stem cell research and cloning/5(5). Stem cell research has been a highly debated topic in our society this year. A variety of social, political, ethical and religious viewpoints have been brought to our attention. Many religious groups believe stem cell research is a violation of human rights. When Pope John Paul II addressed /5(13).