Why is Stem cell research unethical?

Question

Why is Stem cell research unethical?

Answer 1

but for every one destroyed embryo, that would probably be aborted and wasted anyway, wouldn't the stem cells help keep people with Alzheimer or A.L.S. alive?

Answer 2

I don't consider adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research unethical in the least.

Answer 3

Not all stem cell research is unethical.  The use of embryos would be because you are putting an individuals life in danger.  Some of this research can be done using the after birth, placenta, or the umbelical chord after the baby is delivered.  This method is both time and money consumptive.  Just follow the money trail right?

Answer 4

its unethical because they use aborted fetuses, but if you think about it, they will go to waste anyways and consent is taken from the mother. also the research will help medicine advance to help people in the future.

Answer 5

It isn't.

At least - IMO, and in others' opinions.

Let me ask you: is In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) unethical?

When doctors perform IVF, they extract multiple eggs from the potential mother, and fertilise them all in a test tube. They let them grow for a day or two, check them for abnormalities, and then implant several of them at once. The reason they do this is because IVF does not have a very high success rate, so they want to improve their chances by having lots of potential embryos.

Assuming there is a succesfull pregnancy, there will often be several "leftover" fertilised eggs. These are frozen and stored in case the pregnancy develops problems, or in case the couple want to have another child in a few years. But it is not possible to store the embryos for very long, as the risk of abnormality increases; so the embryos can generally only be stored frozen for 5 years. After that, they HAVE to be discarded.

It is these "leftover" embryos, which have no possible future life, that are used as the source for Embryonic Stem Cells. And the cells are only ever removed with the permission of the parents.

Aborted foetuses are NEVER used as a source (apart from anything else, they are too late-stage for ES cells).

So, though the extraction of ES cells DOES involve the destruction of a potential human life, it is from an embryo that had no possible life anyway.

Consider a couple who have a child who tragically dies in an accident. The couple are asked if they want to have the child's organs made available for transplant (possibly saving several other peoples' lives). The situation is no different with ES cell harvesting.

Answer 6

The Bush argument is against Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

It requires a human life to be started and then taken away, and it is done with funds coercively confiscated from taxpayers, many of whom believe it is a sin to kill humans.

Answer 7

It is unethical to deny the living humans who suffer from parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis the opportunity of a cure. Why is the life of a one week old embryo seen as s important. It is made with exactly the same "stuff" as the umbilical cord.

Answer 8

it's not

Answer 9

It isn't. Embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of viable embryos is the only aspect that's problematic. All the rest is fine, and that's the bulk of it. There's been more heat than light generated by people deciding their position before they understood what they were talking about, so I commend you on your question.

An embryo, of course, may be considered a human being, so destruction of an embryo is innately immoral to some. Others are concerned that it cheapens human life, even if it's only a potential life. Imagine, for instance, a third-world country forcing pregnancies to produce the embryos. It could be akin to slavery. With proper controls, of course, these problems can be overcome, and other alternatives are cropping up more or less routinely. Plus, as mentioned earlier, most stem cell research does not involve the destruction of viable embryos, in which the question doesn't even arise.

Answer 10

It isn't. It's a problem for people who have poorly thought out values.

Answer 11

In the scientific sense, it isn't. No laws are being broken because abortions aren't illegal, and no ethic violations are occuring. The laws currently in place are there because of some representatives in congress and the senate having a moral objection to the destruction of a "unborn person."

While the reality is that until a certain stage of development, the organism isn't even considered viable, and many women get pregnant only to have the zygotic cell mass pass out of their system. Alot of the stem cells would actually be acquired from fertility clinics, where the cells would be disposed of anyway.

A stem cell is simply a joining of two half cells (zygotes = half cells) to obtain a standard diploid amount of chromosomes. Taking a stem cell sample would be no different than taking a blood sample, both types of cells couldn't last outside of the body for more than a few moments , without preservative techniques that is.

In the long term, restriction on this type of research, could setback advances in the fields of paralyzation, alzheimers, and Parkinson's disease research. People, live people who we could help sooner if it wasn't for some people's religious agendas.

After all, I thought there was supposed to be something call a seperation of church and state in this country, leave your religious viewpoint at home, and leave the facts to the experts.

Answer 12

because they use unborn babies and aborted babies to research it

Answer 13

certain types of stem cell research do not use aborted fetuses or unfertlized embryos...stem cells of the totipotent type can be obtained from the amniotic cord. blood ...and pluripotent stems cells can be obtained from adult tissues and coerced to differentiate to various cell types related to that cell lineage.

Answer 14

there are two basic argumentive sides to this debate.

one of these sides is that of the genetic scientists, stating that stem cell reserch is an extreamly valuable and important process to help discover cures for serious deseases such as parkinsons desease.

the other side is that of the "religious" or parental side, saying that although adult stem cell reserch is fine (since it can be done painlessly and effectively), embryonic stem cell reserch involves the killing of human embryo's, which will essentially become human adults. they also beleive that by performing tests like this, the value of a human life is lessened, and the embryo's "dignity" is shattered.

personally, i believe that embryonic stem cell reserch should be used often for several reasons. firstly, people arent being forced to have abortions in the name of science to give their childs embryo's up, they are doing it out of free will, and it should be their choice weather to have the operation performed or not.

secondly, embryo's cannot be considered "human" since it is still incapible of living outside the womb. it is basically a cluster of cells called the blastula, which is no more human than a skin cell.

lastly, i cannot see how people can consider an embryo (whilst still of value), more valuable than a sick humans life. people die every day, and allowing cells from embryo's to save somebodies life is not a huge task right?

the answer should be obvious.

Thank you     ; D