EPortfolio

Here is my 'Taking Sides' assignment regarding Stem Cell use.

Biology 1090 M:8:00-10:50

Embryonic Stem Cells

Taking Sides #1

1.Stem cells are could potentially regenerate body parts, or create healthy cells to fight disease. These are not a mass murder, but a modern solution to disease. Some see embryonic stem cells as a child, and do not support the idea of using stem cells to fight disease. Frozen embryos are displayed as if they are babies, but in all reality it is only fertilized cells that have had little growth. The life, or potential life of a stem cell is not something that we can lose benefit of, and that kind of rational is unsustainable to humanity.

2.An embryonic stem cell is a living organism. When you look at an embryonic stem cell, it does look like a human. There is a fear of opening a door to cloning humans through embryonic stem cell research.  To many, embryonic stem cells is seen as cloning. This violates rights by researching a living human without their say is immoral.

3.

1.Seeing how valuable embryonic stem cell research is (curing disease, creating healthy cells) it would seem not using stem cells is wasting a valuable resource.

2.Seeing an embryonic stem cell as a human with rights is not recognized in law.

4.

1.Embryonic stem cells are living organisms, who have developed a gender.

2.Embryonic stem cells are still developing homo sapiens, a part of our gene pool.

5)

1.Embyonic stem cell research is not murder, and a tiny embryo of a child is only a potential child.

2)It is unethical to not use embryonic stem cells, it is a right for those living to have access to their ‘right to life.’

6.

1)Embryonic stem cells will open a gateway to mass cloning.

2)Using embryonic stem cells is considered immoral, even if embryos die naturally.

7. ‘In political respects, this argument is over’ I think this is an overstatement, only because there are still a large percentage of Americans oppose stem cells. It is a fallacy to pretend that it is not an argument at all.

8. ‘But we would not kill a 5 year old child for cancer research...’ comparing these with embryonic stem cells is a fallacy because it is a grossly overstated hypothetical situation that really has nothing to do with the argument being made.

9.I was more intrigued by the ‘yes’ side, mainly because the ‘no’ side did not do much more than defend, instead of support. I think the ‘yes’ argument is pointing out more progressive topics instead of defending life at all levels when natural selection is a part of life.

10.The ‘yes’ side. Instead of being grabbed by gut emotions, the ‘yes’ argument discusses more facts on why this issue of embryonic stem cells is important. I think I would see Hart’s take more valuable because it seemed more of a logical approach instead of instinctual.

11.The ‘no’ argument (Ponnuru) seems to respond by making everything into an unrelated, hypothetical argument. I think they are biased in their opinion because their argument is more based upon moral belief than scientific research. I understand their position, but I also think that people already realize that embryonic stem cells are life but that it is a process of natural selection.