http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=800
My article tells all about the pros of embryonic stem cell research. They mention that is an effective way to cure disease. Do they really know the truth? Adult stem cell research has been proved to be more efficient then embryonic. It has cured over seventy diseases while embryonic has cured only a few. The article says about embryonic stem cell research, "Embryonic stem cell research is considered by most scientists to be a very promising avenue for finding new treatments for incurable ailments such as juvenile diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, to better understand inherited human disease, and to develop safer and more effective new drugs." Finding treatments is one thing, but helping to find a cure is another. Adult stem cell research does no harm to the adult it comes from. Adult stem cells are found AFTER embryonic development and rapidly multiply to replenish dying cells and regenerate damaged tissues. Embryonic stem cells are "stem cell lines [that] are derived from discarded embryos." The term "discarded embryos" refers to abortions; women who sacrifice a brand new human life for people who have already been given a chance to live. While one may argue that an unborn child that doesn't have a heart beat is a reasonable sacrifice to give a dying child, dozens of others will argue that everyone has a right to life. If someone who was born to be as significant as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, etc, we would never know because the life was sacrificed for something as small as embryonic stem cell research. In conclusion, just because something is legal, doesn't make it right, and when we have a stronger, more efficient alternative, why wouldn't we choose that?
No comments:
Post a Comment