THBT stem cell research should be expanded.
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent's assertions are all unwarranted.
Definitions and Clarification
Since my opponent has failed to define what is humane and what is inhumane, I will define the terms :
1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, sympathy, etc.
2. Marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering
3. Inflicting as little pain as possible
We will take inhumane to be the opposite:
1. Cruel and not inflicting as little pain as possible
Also, I will define baby (generously):
1. A very young child; an infant.
2. An unborn child; a fetus.
Since my opponent has used the the phrase "unborn baby" the second definition will be used.
Based on this definition, his statement that an embryo is the equivalent of a fetus in simply false. "Fetus" refers to a later stage of development . The terms are not interchangeable.
My opponent has not defined life either. I will define it as a property emerging at the cellular level, meaning that cells are considered life.
It is also inaccurate to call it "just for research." This statement ignores the possible future applications of the research.
Now for my argument, I will provide evidence that stem cell research is not inhumane but is, in fact, humane and therefore should be expanded. In order to fulfill my burden of proof in supporting the statement "stem cell research should be expanded," I must simply provide satisfactory evidence that it is humane and has potential benefits.
With the given definitions, we must ask the following question in order to determine if stem cell research is inhumane: Are the processes used to obtain stem cells cruel and do they cruelly inflict pain?
Embryonic stem cells:
"Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells. Isolating the embryoblast or inner cell mass (ICM) results in destruction of the fertilized human embryo" .
At this stage in development, the embryo is unable to feel pain, as it has not developed the necessary nerve structures . Therefore it cannot be concluded that it is inhumane to "take away another life" in the case of embryos. I certainly don't think it can be said to be cruel. Unless he wants to argue that it is inhumane to, for example, remove and destroy a cancerous tumor simply because it is composed of living cells, I suggest that my concede on this point (well and on everything else too).
Furthermore, stem cells need not be taken from embryos. Although research related to adult stem cells may be less promising, this fact alone is enough to render his argument invalid. Also, the methods used to obtain adult stem cells can hardly (meaning not at all) be considered cruel or inhumane.
In the future, stem cell research could very well lead to the development of treatments for Parkinson's disease as well as diabetes . "Regenerative medicine holds the promise of new ways to repair cardiovascular damage and of improved cancer treatment. Moreover, there are many other diseases and afflictions that stand to be positively impacted by stem cell research including: stroke, respiratory disease, diabetes (respectively 3, 4 and 7 on the CDC list of causes of death), neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, and some birth defects. Potential benefits of stem cell research are numerous and range from development and testing of new drugs to cell-based therapies in which stem cells are used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue or cells. However, there are many technical hurdles between the promise of stem cells and the realization of these uses, which will only be overcome by continued intensive stem cell research" .
This perfectly fits with our definition of humane, as stem cell research is "Marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering." It should therefore be expanded.
My argument is that the cons of stem cell research refer to issues with embryonic stem cell research. Those who oppose stem cell research oppose the use of embryonic stem cells. To use these cells for research, the embryo must be destroyed, and some feel that this is an ethical issue.
If you can, may you answer this this question, please? It's just curiosity, nothing part of this debate? "If they do have the stem cell research how will it benefit any person if they are low, middle, high class? also would this benefit humanity ten years from now or would it affected?"
Although your problems may be with embryonic stem cell research, you did not limit the debate to it and therefore cannot do so now. Even if you had, you would have to provide support for the position that embryonic stem cell research is "unethical." As you have not responded to or attempted to counter my arguments, I conclude that I have won the debate.
Well I can't predict the future, but any breakthroughs will probably benefit the wealthy first and then eventually those less fortunate as new procedures become more widespread and affordable. Some possibilities include the ability to grow new tissue for patients, to repair organs, and possibly even to grow new organs. If you're interested, I suggest you do some research. It's really quite an interesting topic.
Style1234 forfeited this round.
All arguments extended.
Style1234 forfeited this round.
lit.wakefield forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were incomprehensible. Pro forfeited fewer rounds than Con. Pro had sources, Con did not.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.