Stem Cell Research Should be Funded

INTRODUCTION Greetings – Well, like always, it’s great to be here and I am excited to debate this (which is probably why took that challenge? ;D) I wish my opponent good luck and four enjoyable rounds about this. REBUTTALS 1. Embryos are not concise therefore experimenting on them is not cruel. True is, that embryos have no nervous system of any kind, as the experiments are done with embryos and Zygotes, still, they all, at the end, get terminated. That scientists are not able to physically torture the embryos doesn’t mean, that they don’t kill them. Killing has nothing to do with awareness. To kill: (1.1) Get rid of or destroy completely, especially in large numbers [1] This definition giving by the oxford dictionaries pretty much describes what is done with the research subjects in stem cell research. Though we all kill organisms on a daily basis, just think about mould, snails and spiders, is it morally way less clear, if there should not be a line when it comes to killing within our own species. Society heavily builds on the assumption that is wrong, or better harmful for society, if we kill human organisms. Countries like the USA have grey zones that enables them to kill humans that have committed crimes against society (death sentence). Many other countries such as Germany or Finland don’t allow this logic. This means, that the killing of human organisms cannot generally be seen as something that society has only one answer to, which again means that using tax money for something society doesn’t agree on, is morally controversial itself. 2. Embryos are not as important as complex human life To start off, there is nothing wrong with a little respect. In fact, I hope especially those who actively engage in stem cell research have the respect to understand that they are working with human organisms. Even when they see it as morally justified we can expect them to have respect for life itself, because they create it and they end it. Also, stem cell research is not a miracle science nor is it of immediate success. Other than with abortion we don’t ensure ones survival with another ones death, but hundreds of embryonic stem cells are probably lost for wrong leads or ideas. Funding it now will not get your eight year old girl a cure tomorrow and nobody grants that these cures won’t come from non-embryonic research or iPS cells, which are both parallel forms of stem cell research that don’t involve Zygotes and Embryo disposal. It also controversial to link the worth of a human organism to it’s complexity, awareness, ability to feel pain. There are - born humans with no functioning nervous system - coma patients that aren’t known to be self-aware - mentally and physically disabled born humans and unborn ones - unborn foetus that are physically health, have a nervous system and are developing an awareness Ranking all these people on a scale from worthy to unworthy of life, easily gets us to points in history where human mistreat was justified with this logic. On a mathematical basis: how many embryos have to be used to save the lives of those who would die in the time we need more to find the same solution with iPS or non-embryonic research? If embryonic research would be our only option to save people in an infinite future; this would be different, but chances to find the answer in other ways are there. 3. Embryonic stem cells are the only option This is not fully true (and not referenced, just to be clear here). Since 2007 we are able to create human iPSCs (Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells) that are, though not perfectly yet, programmable back into an embryonic-like stage [2] where they can act and serve the same purpose of an embryonic cell created via fertilisation. The UCLA has already succeeded in making neurones out of skin cells, means that brain diseases are not only curable with traditional embryonic stem cell technology [2]. 4. It’s everyone’s own choice to approve or disapprove of the stem cell research. Well, that is actually my argument. Because funding is, unless by private sponsors, government funding. Means paid with tax money. If I don’t approve I am not able to withhold my money from being used for funding. Which means we should not fund it and respect the moral feelings of many citizens that regard stem cell research as murder. This debate doesn’t try to evaluate whether we should outlaw stem cell research, it evaluates whether we should fund it. And we should not, for the following reasons. ARGUMENTS Premise 1: Embryonic stem cell research is morally controversial Many religions regard it as murder, such as Christianity [3], Judaism and Islam. Though we don’t have to personally follow religious believes as scientists, funding is a different matter, because it involves tax money from many and many religious people. With a world wide population of about 31,5% Christians and about 24% Muslims [4], we already have a solid majority against stem cell research internationally. Stem cell funding would violate their ethics. The logic that we can’t just draw a line between a worthy human (healthy adult) and an unworthy human (disabled? Unborn? Coma?) means that we can’t say for sure that stem cell research is not murder All this makes embryonic stem cell research controversial already Premise 2: Embryonic stem cell research is not the only option we have As already pointed out do we have other options such as non-embryonic research and iPS. Non-embryonic research has more limits than embryonic research but has shown to be successful in many forms such as improving and/or treating the lives of those suffering from Parkinson and autoimmune diseases, stroke, corneal damage, blood and liver disease and diabetes [5]. iPS, though not fully functional, has the same potential [2] as traditional embryonic cell research while not involving the fertilisation of an egg cell. Premise 3: Funding would support potentially harmful actions Funding embryonic research will certainly increase the need for embryos. Therefore the need for female egg cells. Other than male sperm donation, the donation of female egg cells is more problematic and harmful for the donor. Starting with being just physically unpleasant (other than sperm donation) and ending with the risks for bleeding, infertility, cramps and allergic reactions to the antibiotics [6]. Funding will also increase the budget of the research facilities to pay egg donors better, encouraging young and/or poor woman to donate against their moral codex and their health concerns. It even might encourage fathers and husbands to put pressure on their wives to donate eggs because the market price for egg cells is already around $5,000 to $10,000 on some markets. Conclusion: We should not fund embryonic stem cell research SOURCES [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] https://www.stemcell.ucla.edu... [3] Bible, Psalm 51:5, 139:13–15; Jeremiah 1:5 [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://cbhd.org... [6] http://www.eggdonoramerica.com... [7] https://www.eggdonor.com...