Against Stem Cell Research Ppl?

Question

I know that there are ethical issues against stem cell research... but what exactly are those issues? How can I use this against my opponent in a science debate?

Cuz I think that just saying "killing embryos kills potential human life..."

thats just weak, but its true. how to strengthen?

I'm debating against allowing scientists to freely pursue stem cell research.

since embryonic stem cell research is part of it, saying that it has 'ethical controversies' is one of my points... just don't know how to 'support' it with evidence.

Answer 1

I'm against federal funding of stem cell research because I think it is immoral. I don't understand why so many people are outraged by that but oh well. Uncle Sam is chipping in for adult stem cell and cord blood research because those techniques are further along. Whether you think embryonic research is immoral or not doesn't really matter b/c the science just isn't there. If you pro stem cell folks want the cures quicker by any means, then you should be glad that Big Brother isn't involved. We should just let capitalism take its course on this one. The race is on for the private sector fat cats because in their minds the first person to produce something of value is about to make..... yep you guessed it MONEY. They don't wont the Govt involved in this, they want to get Paid. After all thats what a Free Market is all about, competition. NASA took us to the moon on July 20, 1969 but I think Boeing or Lockheed Martin could have done it sooner.

Answer 2

The argument against killing human embryos is not weak. Murder is over there among the most reprehensible human acts.

I think if you want to understand the topic, though, you really need to break it down into components. There are a lot of different approaches to the types of research usually referred to as "stem cell" research. Know what it is before you go in.

One of the greatest arguments in favor of the research is hope. There is little factual basis for the research, but hope itself is powerful. The idea of possible progress is enough for many people to argue against preventing the research.

One of the greatest arguments that I've heard against the research (on a non-emotional level) is that if stem cells come from a different human being there is a high probability of rejection, like any other kind of transplant. The most favorable results from this type of treatment has been from cellular treatments where the materials are taken from a person's own body. (This is why couples are encouraged by doctors to keep their newborn's afterbirth material in event it is needed for harvesting of cells to treat unforseeable conditions that arise. You keep the umbillical cord in storage for your baby's future security.)

Answer 3

There are new ways to get embryonic stem cells without killing a baby. Researchers have found genes in dormant in adult stem cells that are present in embryonic stem cells. I'll have to recheck the second one but it is a possibility that embryonic stem cells can be found in embryonic fluid. Double check that one though. Oh yea, also don't forget that embryonic stem cells are worse since they are unstable.

Answer 4

its potentially true, the bun needs an oven for 9 months...
I'm on the other side on this debate, the "discarded" embryos aren't even sentient, at this point, they are more similar to a parasite caused by an influx of foreign matter than a person
also, quite a bit of research is done on unfertilized blastocysts (ovum with nucleus replaced by nucleus of another cell, such as a skin cell, triggerring cellular division), some even call this unethical because of the use of harvested eggs, if that was the case, women of child bearing age (excluding pregnant women and those on ovulation preventing medications) potentially commit manslaughter every month

Answer 5

The ethical argument is from the harvesting of human cells and growing of potentially human DNA for experimentation. This could lead to growing of full human foetuses that are then used as rodents to test medicine on, or the latest American sitcoms. Where do we draw the line at experimenting with human life and conception?

Answer 6

Really you're trying to foster a debate about ethics regarding something that could save millions of lives. Eliminating Parkinson's Disease, Spina Bifida, and mental retardation- sounds pretty ethical to me.

Answer 7

Adult stem cells are 'safer' than embryonic stem cells which can lead to rejection and tumors....read this:

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/nrl12/stem_cell_news_that_isn.htm

Answer 8

If you paid attention to the facts you would see that this is not true. The ethical issues are from zealot christians(american version of the Taliban). They have their own little political agenda going here. You have a brain ,use it.....get some facts, not religious propaganda.

Answer 9

One place that might strengthen your argument...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_19stemcellprocon.html
A quote...

[ Some of these words are outside the vocabulary even I, at 51,use...but I think this is a position worth looking into...even
if it means getting a dictionary out (apologies, you probably know the meanings of all the words in the quotes).. But forgive me on this one...utilitarian is a good word summing up a philosophical approach..overall that things should be judged on their usefuleness or utility I believe (which, can, at an extreme view humans only in terms of what they can do, not who they are), (Utilitarianism was denounced regularly in the few college/graduate level philosophy classes I took a few years back)]

Sorry, here is the quote:
----------------------------------------------------------
..."Most of those "pro" human embryonic and fetal stem cell research use utilitarian ethical arguments as justification: it is ethically acceptable - even morally required - to destroy a few human beings in order to possibly benefit millions of patients. Besides, these cells do not cause the same immuno-incompatibility problems after transplantation as do adult stem cells from different patients. Further, these early cells from human embryos and fetuses are MORE "totipotent" and "pluripotent" than adult stem cells, and therefore they can be "coaxed" to become more different kinds of tissues, and can last longer in culture awaiting use. Besides, these fetuses and left-over IVF-produced human embryos are going to die anyway, so "we might as well get some good use out of them".

In response, opponents of human embryonic stem cell research identify the major ethical problem as the source of those cells. Living human embryos, who are the most vulnerable of human beings, must be destroyed in the process of taking their stem cells out of their bodies for this research, and it is never ethically acceptable to intentionally kill any innocent human being - no matter how small, even if the "possible benefit" is to the "many". Nor is it ever permissible to do evil that good may come of it. Given that the goals cited by the proponents are laudable and good, the means to those goals must also be ethically good - and here the "means" used in these experiments are the death and destruction of living innocent human beings. It is to reduce them to mere objects for the use of others, rather than subjects with inherent ethical rights deserving of equal protection. Our own slavery laws, Nazi medicine, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and recent government-sponsored radiation experiments also operated on such a two-tier caste of "humanity". And if impending death were the criteria for being allowed to kill human beings, then we could also kill terminally ill patients, death-row inmates and military service personnel facing combat for their organs and stem cells too -for the "greater good". They also note that fetal cord blood cells have already proven successful, and the use of adult stem cells from the same ill patient would by-pass the medical crisis of immuno-incompatibility. Even foreign adult stem cells can be treated with drugs to "hide" the guilty antigens. New drugs like telomerase can keep these cells growing in culture indefinitely, and new hormones like growth factors are being successfully used to encourage cell specialization. Most critically, even adult stem cells can be "coaxed" to become less specialized (less differentiated), and can even provide cell types distinct from their own usual fate (as already mentioned). Finally, adult stem cells are already closer to the kinds of cells that patients already need. So there is really no need to use human embryonic stem cells at all. This has been acknowledged by major researchers, companies, and massive numbers of medical research journal articles recently published in this field. "
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D 2

" Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed research biochemist/biologist (NIH), as well as a Ph.D. philosopher specializing in the history of philosophy, and medical ethics. She is representing the Catholic Medical Association and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations this October at the Guadalupan Appeal Conference in Mexico City on "The dignity and status of the human embryo", where she will present, "The role of correct science in the formation of conscience and the moral decision making process". "
-----------------------------------------
[All right, it is a Catholic viewpoint, and I do stress "a"...
Catholics are as divided on this issue as Amerians in general..
I believe..but would have to get some stats to prove this ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with above..might be a good idea to get more quotes from
magazine articles and books. Ask a librarian for help if needed.

Some good sources that might be in your library...
----Academic Search Premier (indexes mostly articles,
I searched, combining these subject terms...
--embryonic stem cells
-- moral & ethical aspects
and found over 100 articles, (newest articles listed first)

Quite a few of the articles may be full text, you can
print them off at your library...or even at home if your
library subscribes to Academic Search Premier...
and you go to your library's web page..and you have
a library card

If your library does not have Academic Search Premier,
ask if they have similar ones.

---------------------
Also, don't forget books, they summarize things nicely.

---------------------

Hoping the above helps some
If not, let me know, you may email me.

Janice


------------------
Another site..albeit a bit dated...
Scientific Experts Agree:Embryonic Stem Cells
Are Unnecessary for Medical Progress

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact401.htm

----------------------------------------------
Good summary of pros and cons
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/debate.cfm?issue_type=medical_research

[middle...perspective 2]

Answer 10

Call it passive murder. Now that is a strong term to use!