cell research

[priyap09]

Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner, 9/29/2008

The cartoonist illustrates President George Bush declaring that he is “not willing to destroy a life to save a life,” which is why he vetoed stem cell research. A contrasting view of his claims is portrayed in the background. The background displays a graveyard filled with veterans who died fighting in Iraq. This cartoon presents the contradiction that occurs within Bush’s opinions, actions and speeches. Although he is against destroying life, he sends millions of troops who may lose their life fighting in Iraq.
Stem cell research has the potential to treat a variety of diseases, conditions and disabilities such as Parkinson’s disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s diseases, heart disease, osteoarthritis, diabetes and many others. The research can help billions of people live a healthy and a “normal” life. The cells can also be acquired from aborted fetuses, miscarriages and embryos. Scientists can place the aborted fetuses to a better use through patient’s consent. What is the harm in using embryonic cells when it can help billions of people?
Embryonic stem cell research is absolutely ethical and beneficial. However, many pro-life organizations are against embryonic stem cell research in which stem cells are derived from an embryo called blastocyst. The cells are acquired from an embryo that is 5-7 days old and contains 50-150 cells. The removal of the embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryo. However, the embryo does not represent a living human being; it is merely composed of cells. Therefore, the scientists are not destroying life by utilizing the embryonic cells. Pro-lifers should not be worried about removal of embryonic cells while humanity kills millions of other living organism.

[roycastro]

It seems unethical to me that someone would "kill a life to save a life," and that is just what Bush is doing now with the war. Supposedly, many people are dying so that we, the people of America, can live a better life and, in a sense, be saved. Life can be defined by its literal meaning and its colloquial meaning. Stem cell research doesn't violate any of these. Life's literal meaning is that something is an actual living organism; stem cells come from aborted fetuses and miscarriages meaning that the source of stem cells is already dead anyways. It's almost like being an organ donor. Once one dies, they won't have any use for their organs; they might as well be put to a good use and to help save the lives of others. The accepted vernacular for someone's accomplishments, thoughts, and goals is life. Aborted fetuses never got the opportunity to live life and become a part of everyday living, so one can say that they didn't have a "life." There is nothing wrong with the use of stem cells to save a life as opposed to cloning one's own body and raising the body to the appropriate age so that the organs can be matured for the personal use of the original person. This process of saving lives was once in consideration and it's completely unethical because they would have to let the clones actually live life; that would be taking away a life to save another. It's obvious that, as of now, the best form of saving someone's life from a terminal illness or from paralysis is through the use of stem cells.

[gretchenm]

Your information and analysis were dead on. Some facts included in your opinion paragraph, such as the definition of the stem cell and the process of research, might have been more fluent in the previous paragraph. To your credit, I learned some things I did not know, specifically that stem cells are from things that are not living (miscarriages), are from 5-7 days old, and the embryo is made up of 50-150 cells. Your argument thereafter was awkward though. You said, "The removal of the embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryo. However, the embryo does not represent a living human being; it is merely composed of cells. Therefore, the scientists are not destroying life by utilizing the embryonic cells." I understand your view that they are not really living "humans", but cells are still "alive". I also understand others views on how embryos have the potential to become human, thus the subject is difficult to have unmixed feelings about.

[priya]

When I mentioned "However, the embryo does not represent a living human being; it is merely composed of cells. Therefore, the scientists are not destroying life by utilizing the embryonic cells," I was refuting the pro-lifer's views on how killing embryonic cell is unethical and is the same as killing life. Cells are living but they are not human beings. Human beings are composed of more than one cell. There is a difference between killing something that is living and something that is a human being. Moreover, one can acquire the cells from aborted fetuses so I do not see how that is killing life. The cells from the aborted fetuses would be disposed of if not used, so why not put them to a better use in helping people with disabilities? The "life" within the cells of aborted fetuses is already destroyed when the person chose to make an abortion. Cells grow and die all the time in your body.

[Mr. Wells]

Great work and great conversation;

25/25