The Instigator
questionmark
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
TigerFB21
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

That stem cell research should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,918 times Debate No: 9855
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

questionmark

Pro

Topic is self-explanatory, so I'll throw my first two points out and let Con have at it.

The first really big thing about stem cell research is the obvious; that is, we can take stem cells and use them to cure many diseases/medical conditions, including but not limited to the following:spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and Alzheimer's Disease.

The second big thing is that new transplants can be grown from stem cells, so organ donors are no longer needed. as it is, we can only give so many people organ transplants, as we only have so many donors, but if we can grow them, that is no longer an issue.

Good luck con!
TigerFB21

Con

The first problem for embryonic stem cell research (SCR) is embryonic SCR has not produced any apparently useful results. In fact, embryonic stem cell injections have produced subsequent malignant tumors in laboratory animals and humans.
The second problem is embryonic SCR supporters have resorted to political action to force its funding. Such political pressure has been historically placed on science in totalitarian nations such as the Soviet Union. We should be shocked and alarmed to see such events taking place in the United States and other democratic nations.

The third problem is embryonic SCR destroys human life and, as such, is unethical and illegal. It violates United States laws and international policies including The Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

The fourth problem is embryonic SCR exploits women. Embryos may be required in numbers that fertility clinics cannot provide. If human cloning is done to produce embryonic stems cells, this will necessitate massive numbers of human eggs. Obtaining eggs for both needs will require volunteer and paid egg donors.

Taking human life to enhance the health or economics of others is unethical. Just like abortion and euthanasia, embryos are now another class of human life not adequately protected by our laws. Instead of being destroyed, the embryos stored in fertility clinics could be placed for adoption.
Debate Round No. 1
questionmark

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting this argument, I hope to enjoy it.

You are right on your first point in stating, "embryonic SCR has not produced any apparently useful results." However, neither did the studies for the any other medical advancement, not at first. No medical miracle will happen overnight. Cancer studies have not produced much help past chemotherapy, which can be harmful, so should we stop studying cancer? Stem cells have the potential to cure all the things I listed in my earlier argument. These should not be dismissed. As a side note, it also has the possibility to help cure cancer (http://www.ucsf.edu...). However, when you say that they have caused medical problems in test subjects, you have a misconception :" Embryonic stem cells stored over time have been shown to create the type of chromosomal anomalies that create cancer cells." (http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org...). What this means is that you just can't store cells over time and then use them, or they WILL cause a problem. However, so long as they are not stored over time, this isn't an issue.

Second point:that we "have resorted to political action to force its funding." Inaccurate. Government funding was only recently approved, until it was, private funding was used, and it still is.

Third point:It destroys human life. This depends on your definition of 'human life'. The embryos used in embryonic SCR are actually harvested at less than two weeks old, sometimes only four days old. At this point, they have no human resemblance, and are only stem cells, not even sentient yet (http://www.religioustolerance.org...).

Fourth Point:"embryonic SCR exploits women." Not necessarily true. For instance, when someone gets an abortion, that woman has the right to donate that aborted baby to SCR. You said, "this will necessitate massive numbers of human eggs." However, blastocysts (an embryo that has not yet begun to differentiate) " a very large percentage of which are stem cells, which can be kept alive indefinitely, grown in cultures, where the stem cells continue to double in number every 2-3 days." Also, SCR does not require that stem cells be taken from an embryo, they can also be taken from adults, or induced pluripotent cells. Induced pluripotent cells are any cell from a human body that is specially treated to exhibit some of the same qualities as stem cells.

I would also like to bring to light two more arguments:

Point 1:As these transplants are given to people, there will be a difference between those grown from stem cells and those given from a donation. There is NO rejection. If you are given a transplant from someone else's organ, your body will reject the organ. However, a stem cell-grown organ will have your DNA, so it will not be rejected by your body when it is transplanted.

Point 2:The public said yes to it. "For years, all polls report that the American public STRONGLY supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research." (http://usliberals.about.com...). So if everyone is supporting the government funding t, obviously the think it should be legal. If the public thinks that it should be legal, then, as a Representative Republic based country, we need to make it legal.

I would like to point out that my opponent has failed to argue either of the points I brought to light in R1.

Thank you con, I look forward to your next arguments.
TigerFB21

Con

TigerFB21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
questionmark

Pro

So my opponent forfeited, a shame, I actually liked your argument Tiger. So I'll just go back to your argument.

Embryonic SCR "destroys human life and, as such, is unethical and illegal." Well, since abortion is legal, that isn't a true statement. So while it may be unethical, which is up to debate but I won't go there, it is NOT illegal.

Secondly, you said that "Embryos may be required in numbers that fertility clinics cannot provide." I would like to see the numbers and source for this, as I disagree, given that you don't actually need an embryo for SCR.

Hope you come back Con!
TigerFB21

Con

TigerFB21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
questionmark

Pro

questionmark forfeited this round.
TigerFB21

Con

TigerFB21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by questionmark 7 years ago
questionmark
Its pretty much just any stem cells, I'm debating the research more than the cells.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
If you're talking about embryonic stem cells, I call dibs on this debate (I will take it immediately).
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
Agreed
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TigerFB21 7 years ago
TigerFB21
questionmarkTigerFB21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by questionmark 7 years ago
questionmark
questionmarkTigerFB21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rayedawg2013 7 years ago
rayedawg2013
questionmarkTigerFB21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07