is a human being just like you and me and it deserves the same respect that our laws give to us all. This is the position of Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a leading advocate of the right-to-life position.
#Disadvantages of embryonic stem cells full#
It is important to grasp the full force of the claim that the embryo is morally equivalent to a person, a fully developed human being.įor those who hold this view, extracting stem cells from a blastocyst is as morally abhorrent as harvesting organs from a baby to save other people’s lives. The moral and political controversy arises from the fact that extracting the stem cells destroys the blastocyst. This is why the stem cells that are extracted from the blastocyst hold the promise of developing, with proper coaxing in the lab, into any kind of cell the researcher wants to study or repair. The blastocyst represents such an early stage of embryonic development that the cells it contains have not yet differentiated, or taken on the properties of particular organs or tissues-kidneys, muscles, spinal cord, and so on. The bill recently passed by Congress would fund stem cell research only on excess blastocysts left over from infertility treatments. Such blastocysts are either cloned in the lab or created in fertility clinics. It is, rather, a blastocyst, a cluster of 180 to 200 cells, growing in a petri dish, barely visible to the naked eye. It has no recognizable human features or form.
It is not implanted and growing in a woman’s uterus. MS: Before we address that, it is important to be clear about the embryo from which stem cells are extracted. SCL: What are the contradictions in Bush’s stance? It is, rather, a blastocyst, a cluster of 180 to 200 cells, growing in a petri dish, barely visible to the naked eye.” “It is important to be clear about the embryo from which stem cells are extracted. It has also led the media to miss glaring contradictions in Bush’s stem cell policy, which does not actually live up to the principle it invokes-that destroying an embryo is like killing a child. Ignoring the claim that the blastocyst is a person fails to respect those who oppose embryonic stem cell research on principled moral grounds. The fact that a moral belief may be rooted in religious conviction neither exempts it from challenge nor puts it beyond the realm of public debate. MS: Perhaps this claim has gone unaddressed because stem cell proponents and many in the media consider it obviously false-a faith-based belief that no rational argument could possibly dislodge. SCL: Considering that the moral and political controversy over embryonic stem cell research centers on this very question, why do you think there is so little attention being paid to it? It is surprising that, despite the extensive public debate-in Congress, during the 20 election campaigns, and on the Sunday morning talk shows-relatively little attention has been paid to the moral issue at the heart of the controversy: Are the opponents of stem cell research correct in their claim that the unimplanted human embryo is already a human being, morally equivalent to a person? As Bush declared when he vetoed last year’s stem cell bill, the federal government should not support “the taking of innocent human life.”
Opponents argue that the research is unethical, because deriving the stem cells destroys the blastocyst, an unimplanted human embryo at the sixth to eighth day of development. MS: Proponents argue that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for understanding and curing diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, and other debilitating conditions. SCL: What are th e main arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research? “This bill crosses a moral line that I and others find troubling,” stated Bush, following the Senate’s vote. Last year, President Bush cast the first veto of his presidency when Congress tried to ease the restriction on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.įollowing the recent passage by both houses of Congress of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would permit federal funding of research using donated surplus embryonic stem cells from fertility clinics, the president has once again threatened a veto.īecause neither the House nor the Senate had sufficient votes to override a presidential veto, it appears unlikely this new bill will be enacted into law, further stalling the pace of this research.
0 kommentar(er)
