During our group’s round table discussion, we discussed on issues surrounding the topic of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). The opposition team started off by pointing out that ESCR devalues human life. Embryonic stem cells are located within the embryo and the process of removing them requires the embryo to be destroyed. Certainly, from the pro-life advocates’ and some religious point of view, this should not be allowed as we are killing a life. The proposition team rebutted by indicating that embryonic cells that are before 14 days shouldn’t be considered a human being yet as these cells have not developed any part that clearly determines its identity as a human. Without the nerve cells, the embryo would not be able to feel pain and since it is not considered a life yet, we should be allowed to use them for ESCR. However, the opposition team continue to argue that since embryonic cells have the potential to become a human, they should be given the same treatment as a human being. I feel that this area that we are debating is a rather grey area, one is backed by science while the other is backed by religious views, we cannot just ignore the religious point of view since beliefs of many are defined by their religion.
The opposition team also pointed out the high failure rate of the research and this would only result in wastage of embryos. Stem cell research has been ongoing for the past 10 years but no promising result has been achieved. Then, the proposition team stepped in to point out that ESCR is very restricted in many countries and researchers are only using 21 stem cell lines that are available for their research. More lines are needed to be introduced in order for scientist to conduct a more extensive research on embryonic stem cell.
Personally, I am standing on the side of allowing ESCR, I believe not only lives will be saved, it will also relief the financial, mental and physical strain of those suffering from long-term diseases. However, I am just wondering: if ESCR were to be allowed, it may advance to the point that every part of your body can be replace/repaired and people are able to “renew” their degenerated body parts. If that is the case, wouldn’t life expectancy be going up? Will the increasing population pose a threat on the equilibrium of the earth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be careful with sentence structure. In the last sentence of paragraph 1, you wrote the following: I feel that this area that we are debating is a rather grey area, one is backed by science while the other is backed by religious views, we cannot just ignore the religious point of view since beliefs of many are defined by their religion. You have 3 separate sentences smashed into one here!
ReplyDeleteHere is a possible rewrite, with changes in punctuation and other aspects:
I feel that this area that we are debating is a rather grey area: one is backed by science while the other is backed by religious views. We cannot just ignore the religious point of view, since many people's beliefs are defined by their religion.