According to an article in People Weekly the theory is that embryonic stem cells could replace any damaged or diseased tissue, curing diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes. Sounds like a winning plan to the uneducated hear. The problem that arises with this theory is that scientists must destroy human embryos to make the cells.

Michael West, the chief executive of Advanced Cell Technology a Worcester, Massachusetts based company where a majority of their cells come from embryos left over from In Vitro Fertilization. In Vitro Fertilization, is

When asked in a CNN.com chat room, “When do scientists consider an embryo a life?” Dr. Jeffrey Kahn the Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota responded with this. “It depends on the scientist, but you would get views ranging from “at conception” to “at birth.” Many people consider the stage of embryos we are talking about to be “pre-embryos” since they are so early in their development.”

Through the duration of my research I have been trying to decide what exactly my stance is on this issue. Like many of the scientists and politician’s articles and websites I came across. I found it quite difficult to come to my own conclusion. Both sides post very good arguments. I would love to see Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer and other diseases cured. It is not too far off to say that I have a good chance of seeing it happen in my life. However, it should be done in a moral manner. Who determines the morals? Everyone’s morals are the different. I was raised a Baptist until I was in sixth grade. Then we started attending a Word of Faith church. My parents played a big role in how I was raised but yet I still do not have the same morals and ethics as them. So my final stance is that this is not an issue of right or wrong. Whoever said, “You are either hot or cold, you can be luke warm” definitely did not live in the year 2002 and if he is then he has retracted his previous statement. I have done hours of research and I still have not even came close to decision. I do know that in vitro patients would donate the only embryos I would want to be used, for the sole purpose of stem cell research.

There are also many other reasons why human cloning is considered unethical. However most of them do involve the question of whether or not it is acceptable to destroy many potential lives to advance our knowledge as humans, and possibly someday cure many diseases in the process (Kass).

The vast majority of Americans object to human cloning, and on multiple moral grounds, among them the following. It constitutes unethical experimentation on the child-to-be, subjecting him or her to enormous risks of bodily and developmental abnormalities. It threatens individuality, by deliberately saddling the clone with a genotype that has already lived and to whose previous life its life will always be compared. It6 confuses identity by denying the clone to biological parents and by making it the twin of its older copy. It represents a giant step toward turning procreation into manufacture (especially when understood as the harbinger of non-therapeutic genetic manipulations to come). And it is a radical form of parental despotism and child abuse even when practiced freely and on a small scale. Permitting human cloning means saying yes to the dangerous principle that we are entitled to determin

Some topics in this essay:
Richard Seed, Prohibition Act, Alzheimer’s Parkinson’s, God Bush, Research Technology, Word Faith, George Bush’s, Cell Technology, Democratic Coalition, University Minnesota, human cloning, stem cell, stem cell research, cell research, stem cells, cloning technology, embryonic stem, cloning stem cell, cloning stem, alzheimer’s parkinson’s, embryonic stem cells, average person, stance issue, adult stem cells, advanced cell technology,