Stem Cells save lives, we should use them
...nal cord injuries, like paralysis. This technology may be especially useful for cancer patients, such as Mark (Abilene Reporter). Because of their inability to maintain an appropriate number of healthy cells, this technology would be able to easily counter the growth of inferior cell outbreaks. There are two types of stem cells, the adult stem cell and the embryonic stem cell. Current researchers indicate that although both of these cells hold enormous promise, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in many important ways. Adult stem cells usually derive from the patients themselves and can come from various parts of the body such as bone marrow, blood, the cornea, the liver, and skin. These cells are capable self-renewal. They divide usually to generate precursor cells which in turn divide into mature cells which hold the capabilities to perform the intended ending functions (e.g. muscles contracting or nerve cells signaling). The downside of using this cell is that they are difficult to identify, isolate, and purify (Bettelheim). This proves very costly to researchers, which is why they are rarely used. The cell preferred is the embryonic stem cell. Because of this cell’s plasticity and availability, scientists can work with much less difficulty. These cells derive from aborted fetuses or early-stage embryos, otherwise known as a blastocyte. Scientists can extract these cells easily and isolate the inner mass, which is a grouping of stem cells within a blastocyte, and then colonize them into a grouping of stem cells which have potential to replace nearly any damaged cell in the body. Like the adult stem cell, there is a downside. After the cells are extracted, the embryo is destroyed. Many anti-abortion, pro-life and religious organizations hold strong opposing views of this procedure, feeling that it is an unnecessary and an unethical treatment. This controversy is centered mainly on the effects of testing embryonic cells and not so much the use of adult stem cells. These concerns are shared by individuals universally, which is why the issue of stem cells being used in medical research is so highly debated. Many of the people involved with this debate are relatively unfamiliar with stem cells. Lack of accurate information to the American public has generated unwarranted activism against stem cell research and negatively impacted popular opinion. This issue hasn’t been thoroughly explained to the nation, which is why upset activists against stem cell research are having such an impact on the populous. Without the government and researchers countering these activists protests, there is little reason to believe this technology will be a positive addition to medical practices. When looking at the medical procedures practiced today, it would be hypocritical to say that the use of stem cells is unethical. The reasons opposing stem cells don’t outweigh the numerous benefits they will provide. It is necessary we support stem cells so we can finally take a stand against the detrimental ailments that afflict our nation. The opponents of the stem cell debate present two primary arguments. The first being based on the loss of an embryo in hopes to advance medical practices. As previously stated, an embryo dies after its stem cells have been extracted. This sacrifice upsets many people who feel that an embryo should be given the same rights as you and me. These people feel that a child’s life begins at the time of conception. In their eyes this embryo has the potential to become a living being and terminating a five-week-old embryo makes a person no more innocent than a person killing a 2-year-old child (McCloskey). I can see why people are upset over this practice and I agree that the means to successfully complete a stem cell transplant procedure does have its sacrifices, but I believe that it is virtuous to eliminate suffering in actual lives when we may do so at no cost in potential lives . Also, this sacrifice is not as great as many opponents make it out to be. The aborted fetuses and embryos used in stem cell research are used because there is no guarantee that they will even survive, many would be thrown away and go to waste anyway. These opponents also feel that we should explore alternate sources to develop stem cells (www.n.h.gw/stemcells/scineport). We have explored alternate sources for stem cells, there simply haven’t been any sources that equal or exceed the potential of embryonic stem cells. A second and very controversial aspect of this dispute involves how the government will distribute its federal funds. Critics and anti-abortion groups want to prevent tax dollars from subsidizing the research, even with the potential benefits in mind. These individuals feel that giving federal funds to develop stem cells will run counter to a congressional ban set in 1995 which prohibits federal funds from benefitting all but a few stem cell colonies. They do not want their money aiding the progression of a medical practice which does not support their ethical beliefs (Wilson). First of all, our government hasn’t yet fully accepted stem cells. There is only a small portion of federal funds going to researchers to develop this technology. Secondly, our government is run by a democracy. Not everyone is going to get what they want. For example, many people don’t support their tax ...