The advancement of science has been so rapid that Man has been able to do so many things that were inconceivable years ago. Such examples include cloning and using stem cells to create new cells. The improvement of biomedical science, has indeed provided a glimpse of hope for curing chronic diseases however, there is a crash between the ethical values and the medical values of this scientific advancement. I believe that it is important for Man to draw a fine line between saving lives and playing God, therefore, Embryonic Stem Cell research should not be carried out. Embryonic Stem Cell research would logically require embryos, which means embryos would be sacrificed. Another research on stem cells involves combining animal and human eggs. This is immoral as it goes against the nature of mankind.
Embryonic Stem cells (ES cells) are obtained from an embryo about four to five days after fertilization. This is parallel to murder and therefore, should not be carried out. An embryo is a ball of cells multiplied from a zygote. This embryo would undergo implantation into the mother's uterus lining before becoming a fetus and finally becoming a newborn baby nine months after conception. When stem cells are obtained from this potential baby, the right of life has been taken away, and act of murder is carried out. The same way murder is frowned upon and illegal in most if not all societies, Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be banned.
Cybrids are animal eggs fused with human DNA. Scientists are working to create this so as to make up for a lack of human eggs. However, this is dissolving the nature of man and would spark chaos in ethical debates. Laws should be implemented to prevent such occurances. Humans and animals were created with a huge distinction. For example, even though we may be 97% genetically similar to an ape, we are the most intelligent and dominant species of the Earth. In a similar way beastality is banned, the ethical issues here should be considered the same as it interferes the ethical boundaries of Man. (into animal boundaries, I might add)
Yes, there might be positives to this controversial issue. The advances of this science may see many new discoveries and cures to what we know as 'incurable' diseases. Cancer would be a notable disease to be conquered. It is the sole cause of 25% of deaths in the US and this means the advancement would save many lives. Lets hold that thought for a moment. We have heard of many people dying of cancer, but yet again, have you heard stories of those who detected their cancer early and managed to win the poker game with death? Cancer can be cured through early detection and it is much safer this way than to wander off into unknown grounds. Who knows what deadly bacteria might be created in the process of searching for a saviour. After all, prevention is better than cure. We should not try to play God but do what we can already do.
Cells mutate, viruses mutate. For every cure we invent, viruses adapt. That is nature. If not, the common cold would not be so common after all. We are blessed with intelligence and dominance over animals. However, that does not mean that we should play God and altar the occurance of nature. A fine line should be drawn to determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to prevent any disasters from happening.
