The two opposing articles I chose to read were on the topic of stem cell research. Stem cell research is currently a very controversial topic. The purpose of stem cell research is to take cells from an embryo that has not matured and manipulate those cells to be used anywhere in the body. For example, a popular stem cell research topic right now is taking the stem cells and injecting them into damaged heart tissue to see if those cells will take on the role of the heart cells, start to regenerate, and then repair the damaged heart tissue.
Those who are against stem cell research argue that by conducting stem cell research, the embryos from which the stem cells are derived are “killed” and cannot develop into a human being. Those who are in favor of stem cell research argue that by using these stem cells, one is saving a human’s life who is already developed and has experienced what it feels like to live; whereas, the embryo has not yet developed and is simply a bundle of cells at the time the stem cells are extracted.
I think the article that supported stem cell research was more convincing because it mentioned the facts and the opposing viewpoints of the topic. It also attempted to refute the opposing viewpoints with facts and knowledge, and not by simply stating that the opposing viewpoints were wrong just because they were wrong. My opinion of the topic has not changed because the articles against stem cell research have no solid backup for their point of view other than stem cell research is unethical, basically based on religion. While religion is great, and people are entitled to their own opinions, I believe people can be religious without following every guideline outlined for them by documents created hundreds or thousands of years ago when these topics of concern didn’t exist.
In my opinion, if you can save the life of someone living who has experienced life, you should, and that is the correct ethical decision.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment