Embryo Research

[Parkspapercut]

What are the ethical points of view on this subject, from both sides?

Many thanks for the replies, it will help for a college project.

 

[Parkspapercut]

*Bump*

Please help or suggest somewhere else to post this.

 

[Merlin]

*Bump*

Please learn patience.

 

[Parkspapercut]

Please learn patience.

Can you contribute more to this topic than just a simple criticism?

 

[Spherical Time]

What are the ethical points of view on this subject, from both sides?

Many thanks for the replies, it will help for a college project.

Really, the ethical dilema comes down to a question about when the embryo is a human baby. One side of the issue says that doesn't occur until birth, in which case the embryo is considered property that can be destroyed for research. The other side says that as soon as a spermazoa and an egg have combined, it's a human life and therefore must be protected.

Incidentally, most of this debate is much more clearly defined in books and articles. If you're doing a research paper for college, an annonymous posting on the internet isn't really the best source. It's certainly not something that I would have accepted when I was grading papers.

 

[boxhead]

Really, the ethical dilema comes down to a question about when the embryo is a human baby. One side of the issue says that doesn't occur until birth, in which case the embryo is considered property that can be destroyed for research. The other side says that as soon as a spermazoa and an egg have combined, it's a human life and therefore must be protected.

Incidentally, most of this debate is much more clearly defined in books and articles. If you're doing a research paper for college, an annonymous posting on the internet isn't really the best source. It's certainly not something that I would have accepted when I was grading papers.

I'm parkspapercut's colleague on this project. We have been researching throughout the internet and through books to find the scientific facts, however, we felt that to have the viewpoints of Christians would be a good part to put into it. We won't use what people say as fact, but we can put it down as opinions that we have sampled from the Christian community. We do go to a Catholic 6th Form College afterall (won't mean much to you unless you're British or aware of the British Schooling System)

 

[Robinsegg]

Well, on an anti-embryonic research view:
1. Yes, most against this practice believe that the human embryo is human as much as anyone else.
2. Also, most of the controversy on this has been on embryonic stem cell research. While there have been positive medical results from adult and cord blood stem cells, embryonic stem cell research (to my knowledge) has failed to produce positive medical results.
3. Stem cells (if that is what you're talking about) are available through other means that do not harm the donor as they do human embryos (which are usually dead when the cells are collected).
4. I've seen embryonic research touted as a positive reason for legal abortion, which some oppose.

Does that give you a good starting place?
Rachel

 

[jayem]

As ST said, the question is whether a fertilized egg is a person. Biology alone cannot give a definitive answer. I think it confuses the matter when we concentrate on whether a zygote is alive, or genetically human, or its state of brain development. Ultimately, when an embryo is considered a "person" must be decided by a societal consensus. I think it's akin to when is someone considered a legal adult. Age 21 is really just a convenient, though arbitrary, boundary. We'll just have to compromise on some point when personhood begins as a practical necessity.

Personally, I don't think any zygote fertilized in-vitro, and not implanted can have any claim on personhood. And I would further limit the start of personhood to either of two times, whichever comes first:
1) At birth, whenever that occurs
2) When a fetus, still in utero, is natually viable (24 weeks.)

 

[michabo]

What Jayem said.

As with any issue in biology, we end up trying to draw distinct boarders in a continuous process. No matter what we like to think is essential to being a person, it will vary smoothly over the course of a person's life, and even between different people that are alive today.

For example, if we decide that our ability to survive independently is important, then we have many problems. Accident victims can't survive without a respirator - can we experiment on them? Some foetuses could have a 1% survival rate - is that good enough? 20%? 50%? 99%? Newborns die in their cribs suddenly, so maybe we consider them available for research until they reach some age where SIDS is no longer an issue?

Maybe we take our intellect to be some significant feature of humanity over animals. So we wouldn't experiment on any foetus once it has developed a certain proportion of its brain. Well, two year olds have less cognitive ability than adult chimps, so does that mean we shouldn't experiment on chimps, or does it mean that we can experiment on children?

It can easily work the other way, too. If it is the potential for humanity which is important, then you outlaw all experimentation on any fertilized eg is just a tiny blob of cells. Experimenting on any tissues in our body has the same problem. And this moral principle would forbid masturbation as it kills many potential humans.


The only way to handle this is to draw fixed, arbitrary lines and pretend like there is a discontinuity at this point. Like a 20 year old is somehow more able to handle alchohol than a 19 year and 363 day old person.

 

[Spherical Time]

I'm parkspapercut's colleague on this project. We have been researching throughout the internet and through books to find the scientific facts, however, we felt that to have the viewpoints of Christians would be a good part to put into it. We won't use what people say as fact, but we can put it down as opinions that we have sampled from the Christian community. We do go to a Catholic 6th Form College afterall (won't mean much to you unless you're British or aware of the British Schooling System)

If that's the case, then neither my, jayem or michabo's comments will help you. Sorry about that.

 

[steen]

I am Christian and have no problem with Embryonic stemcell research. IN fact, I applaud and encourage it. It can potentially help millions of people with Diabetes, Parkinsons, cystic fibrosis and a lot of other diseases where genetics have messed up organs.

To oppose it per claims of personhood or whatnot of non-sensate, non-sentient tissue is cruel to the sufferers of these disease in any way I see it.

 

[Robinsegg]

Steen,
What of the argument that Stem Cells from adults or cord blood are more effective and easily available?
Rachel

 

[steen]

They are not pleuripotential.

 

[Robinsegg]

pleuripotential.

Please define?

 

[steen]

Undifferentiated, and therefore able to specialize into any cell-type of the body. Adult and cord stemcells have no such ability.

 

[Robinsegg]

So, why has there been more success with adult and cord blood cells than with embryonic? Or has there been a case where they worked and I missed it?
Rachel

 

[steen]

So, why has there been more success with adult and cord blood cells than with embryonic? Or has there been a case where they worked and I missed it?
Rachel

Because research has been restricted on religious grounds. And the "success" you talk about is very limited.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Steen,
What of the argument that Stem Cells from adults or cord blood are more effective and easily available?
Rachel

Uhhh that argument is patently false.

LLH

 

[Robinsegg]

Uhhh that argument is patently false.

LLH

Which part, that they're more effective, or that they're easily available?
Rachel