First Constructive

Stem Cells: The New Medicine?

For the past decade the United States government has been struggling with a very controversial question. Should embryonic stem cells be allowed to be harvested for scientific research? Although I think that the question that is really causing so much devise is; Do humans have the right to destroy potential life in order to further our ability to help others live healthier, more satisfying lives? These questions revolve around whether or not the government and the people of our country should take part in stem cell research. This topic normally produces either strong positive or negative opinions. Is there a solution to satisfy both the moral and educational constraint we are facing? There is too much to be gained from this research to waste time in the decision making stage of the process. While other areas of the world are making huge advances in their science and medical fields, the U.S. is slowing its own progress with our indecisiveness. There are many new and wonderful technologies to be discovered through study of stem cells and their inherent qualities. To consider the prospects of stem cells it is important to examine and explore what they are, why its field is so contentious, and what the benefits would be for the United States encouraging and funding stem cell research.

 
The definition of stem cells is, “cells with the ability to divide for indefinite periods in culture and to give rise to specialized cells ”. What this means is that stem cells have the capability to form into many different kinds of cells that perform very specific functions. For example, a single stem cell has the potential to turn into a red blood cell, a liver cell, a skin cell or most any other type of cell that performs a specific function. Once a stem cell has adapted to fulfill the roles of a specific cell type it then performs as that cell for the remainder of its life. They are called stem cells because, like the stem of a tree, they can branch off into many separate branches of cell utility. 

     
 It was obvious to scientists that these stem cells offered major possible benefits to humans if they could control what types of cells they transform into. Because stem cells have the potential to replace cells in the human body scientists hoped that they could use them to replace or heal many separate organs in humans. Children born with deficient lungs could have them improved to regular function by the use of stem cells. Veterans who lose limbs in war could have them restored. We are finding more and more that stem cells really are able to reach their desired potential in helping heal and improve people’s lives.

   
 Discoveries like this give us further insight into the immense positive impact that studying stem cells can have on our ability to study and treat medical illnesses. It is clear that we need to further our understanding of stem cells by expanding the research that is being done on these remarkable life forms. Some areas of stem cell research are ethically debatable, but the areas that show the most potential for benefiting human lives stay safely inside the boundaries of right and wrong. 

     
 Everyone knows at least one person with a disability. What if this disability could be healed through the use of stem cells? The two barriers standing in the way of this are money and moral issues, although I personally believe that these are not true issues. The solution to the financial issue is simple. If there are 319 million people in america and everyone paid only fifty-cents (one time) it would more than double the budget for stem cell research. In the year 2013 the embryonic stem cell budget was 146 million for that year. In comparison to the war in Iraq, the budget that year was 800 million. We are sending troops out to war and bringing them back with no way of replacing their lost limbs. Fifty-cents is less than a candy bar, it is well worth it for the overall cause. The second issue at hand is the morality debate. This too can be resolved if people understood that only fetuses that have died of natural causes are being used for embryonic stem cells. It does not relate to abortions because no form of life is being taken to continue the research. 

     
The opportunity of human regeneration would seem to rank in one of the most noble causes of human endeavor.  It can offer people a chance to heal and renew body parts that have been inflicted either from natural causes or a service to ones country. 

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #1

I read a news story titled "You Won't Believe Why a Neighbor Called the Police on this Parent". I found this story through a link that was posted on facebook. I found it intriguing because the title already sounded like it could have fallacious reasonings within the story. The story is about a mom who was watching her kids play outside, and apparently so was the neighbor. The daughter and son were out playing with the dog 150 feet away and when the daughter brought the dog inside the boy stayed outside alone. The neighbor took it on as their responsibility to take the boy into their house where there was adult supervision. The neighbor then called the police and child protective services. I would say that the neighbor had fallacious reasoning thinking that it was okay to bring the child into their home and that it was bad that the boy was playing outside when they didn't check to see if he was being supervised.

There is so much fear in people now days about playing outside that it has stopped kids from getting the physical exercise they need. Many parents would rather have their kids sitting down playing, occasionally violent, video games than having the risk of them being outside. As obesity continues to become a large problem in our society, young kids are being stopped from playing outside by nosey neighbors. Other than the problem of obesity, I found it very problemsome that the neighbor brought someone elses child into their home with no permission. The parent of the children was furious that their privacy was taken from them and that they had to be interviewed by child protected services for simply letting her kids play outside.