CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
6
Ethical: should be govt funded unethical: should be banned
Debate Score:19
Arguments:12
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Ethical: should be govt funded (9)
 
 unethical: should be banned (3)

Debate Creator

hiperson134(7) pic



Embryonic Stem Cell Research ethics

Recently, United States President Barack Obama stated in a speech that he would lift the ban (imposed by Bush jr.) on embryonic stem cell research. Stem cells have immense potential to cure diseases such as cancers, diabetes, and Parkinson's. However, in the process of harvesting the stem cells, the human embryo they are taken from are destroyed. Is this an ethical practice? Is it okay to take a few lives with the chance of saving many more? Keep in mind that some religions believe life starts at conception and consider this to be murder.

Ethical: should be govt funded

Side Score: 13
VS.

unethical: should be banned

Side Score: 6
2 points

Yes, in the Constitution, it states that all humans have three unalienable rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By furthering the research, you are helping save lives, and, in the case of diabetes, you are lifting a huge burden off of others. Sure, one life may be lost, but in the process of taking that one life, many others (possibly thousands) could be saved.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded
Tugman(749) Disputed
1 point

What about the lives of the embryos? The ends never justify the means. Adult stem cell researsch shows promise and babies are being harvested.

Side: unethical: should be banned
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

Life without consciousness carries no moral value.

The idea that a clump of cells carries the same value as a human being is supported by nothing other than religious faith. Thus banning research on embryonic stem cells is basing government policy on religion, and that's never a good idea.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded
2 points

It's a touchy subject.

While I do believe that the government should fund scientific research, Embryonic research (which i do not believe should be banned) is a process of destroying thousands of life to POSSIBLY save one life. I support stem cell research in total, and it should be funded, but embryonic research is only a small part that hurts the rest of the cause. Non-Embryonic stem cell research has proven to be as, if not more effective than embryonic stem cell research.

My personal beliefs says it should all be funded, but it's hard to get others to go along with it because they view it as creating lives only to destroy them.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

"Non-Embryonic stem cell research has proven to be as, if not more effective than embryonic stem cell research."

This is not true. Embryonic stem cells have much more flexibility than non-embryonic stem cells -- they can easily become any type of cell. They can also be easily grown in large numbers, while adult stem cells cannot.

The only good thing about adult stem cells is they are less likely to be rejected by the immune system if used in a medical procedure.

Also remember that embryonic stem cells have been banned for the last eight years, so all the research has been done on the less flexible kind.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

well, that was what i was referring to, how the body is less likely to reject them.

but i do understand where you're coming from.

and it's not that they were "banned", the government just cut funding for it.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded
DougH(1) Disputed
1 point

Just to clarify embryonic stem cells were never banned from research, what was limited was federal government funding.

As of July 2009, a canadian research team has been able to modify adult stems with the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells without using injections.

The only real argument for using embryos is that for researches to better understand the makeup of the stem cells. Embryonic stem cells hold no future benefits that adult stems cells.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded
2 points

Since the embryo they're taken from is destroyed regardless of whether or not we harvest stem cells from them, it's irrelevant that they're destroyed. Since this is the only proposed ethical dilemma, its clear embryonic stem cell research is ethical.

Now, if you argued that companies were forming that would pay women to be impregnated for the sole purpose of harvesting their embryonic stem cells, you'd have a better ethical argument.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded
1 point

Why sacrifice potential babies conducting embryonic stem cell research when there are also other means to get the needed stem cells, like the umbilical cord of the babies. There are studies that you could get the same needed cells on the umbilical cord of a new born babies. They can conduct their research on this and save the lives of million of others without sacrificing the life another human being.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded

I think the Government should fund this research because some diseases will be cured.

Side: Ethical: should be govt funded
No arguments found. Add one!