- Even though we said we weren't going to entertain discussion about reproductive cloning - are there situations under which reproductive cloning should be permissible? To save endangered species? To clone a pet? To allow single parents to have genetically related children?
- Should the federal government pass legislation allowing for the development of more ES cell lines to be produced?
- Should congress pass legislation restricting ES cell research until more is known about its true potential?
- Should researchers be investing more into the development of methods and techniques that may not require developing an embryo to harvest stem cells (such as reversine or parthenogenesis)?
- Is it morally acceptable to create an embryo with the explicit intent of destroying it? Should these embryos be accorded the same legal status as adults?
- If legislation is passed further restricting ES cell research, might the US fall behind other nations in terms of this field of medical research?
- What should be the source of eggs when and if therapeutic cloning and stem research reaches the point that they may be used therapeutically?
- Are there other questions you have that we should entertain around these topics?
Doc Eh
4 comments:
"Should congress pass legislation restricting ES cell research until more is known about its true potential?"
The dilemma with this is whether ES cell researchers will abide by legislations passed by congress if it chooses to restrict the research. Unlike other research possibilities, stem cell research does not require humongous labs or machanic equipments. Researchers can secretly conduct experiments should they choose to go against the law and, although nothing has been confirmed, many speculate that underground stem cell researches, privately funded, currently take place around the world. (One example might be Clonaid, a Raelian Movement-affiliated company that seeks to clone human beings.)
"If legislation is passed further restricting ES cell research, might the US fall behind other nations in terms of this field of medical research?"
Legislation passed in America only governs those conducting research within America. By passing laws which inhibit stem cell research for Americans, we are putting our scientists at a disadvantage. Other researchers around the world will have access to funding and ES lines we won't. American scientists dedicated to studying stem cells may even choose to move to foreign countries to pursue their research. If there are moral arguments against stem cell research, we are not solving anything by passing laws in the US. The research will still be going on, just elsewhere. It may be better to have this research going on in our own country so we can at least monitor it, and so that the US does not continue to fall behind in the global scientific community.
jI came across some interesting information while researching in my "pro-life activist" role about embryo terminology. Apparently for some time scientists would refer to a human embryo in the first two weeks of development as a "pre-embryo", but recently this term has been rejected by the Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. It now recognizes that human embryos are human beings upon fertilization and the one cell stage onward.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with this, but it certainly was new information to me. The info is contained in this article: http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/position_statement.htm
In response to two questions:
Are there situations under which reproductive cloning should be permissible? To save endangered species? To clone a pet? To allow single parents to have genetically related children?
Reproductive cloning should only be permissible if certain conditions are met. I think to save endangered species is acceptable, because it is the preservation biodiversity on the earth. However reasons related to personal/individual pleasure/need such as the company of a pet or the desire to have another child, etc only betters the life of one person and doesn't affect a community as a whole, so I would deem it unreasonable.
Is it morally acceptable to create an embryo with the explicit intent of destroying it? Should these embryos be accorded the same legal status as adults?
I say no to the first question and yes to the latter - my personal belief is that embryos are humans. I understand that many people think that because embryos have not been developed into fetuses that to destroy an embryo is not murder is contrary to what I think. Yes, the stage of being an embryo precede the stage of being a fetus which is the more distinct stage of when a human is being developed, but just the fact that an embryo has the potential to become a human is enough for me to say that embryos should "be accorded the same legal status as adults."
Post a Comment