Stem Cell Research Pros And Cons

Published 28 Jul 2016

I believe that stem cell research is not in favor of human life’s respect and protection. It will just run counter to the ethical standard that has been provided for by legitimate authorities. While it is true that every person has the right to look for ways and means to cure some incurable diseases, but it should not also be done at the expense of anything that is against human life. For what is the essence of saving the life at the expense of another life? It is useless and illogical.

Stem cell research is simply understood as a research by means of which the embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are being scraped and used for the repair of the body cells. This is a process that will eventually develop cure of diseases such as Parkinson’s diseases, diabetes, and even heart diseases. The stem cell is said to degenerate to replenish other cells to help treat diseases.

Well, the purpose of the research is good. There is no question with that, including the use of adult stem cell. But, the problem will emerge when it comes to the protection of an embryo. The researchers basically utilize embryo which was a few days old after fertilization in the mother’s womb. This means that there is a corresponding destruction of an embryo that is degrading to think.

Human life is believed to begin at the conception of the mother and it will become a human person eventually as it will be born. As such, every conceived embryo is already considered a human person in the process with fundamental rights, including the right to life itself. The embryo is considered innocent in its own right.

In line with that, where is logic when diseases are sometimes acquired by people who did not take good care of their health and be cured at the expense of an embryo that was deprived a chance to live? Ethically, stem cell research is not acceptable if only to violate the life of the unborn. It will not justify the necessity of finding a cure for diseases that are incurable. There must be another way other than stem cell research. With that, it should not be tolerated by the government.

I believe that smoking in public should be eliminated for the reason that it is bad for the health, both with respect to smokers and non-smokers. When it comes to the welfare of every person, the effort to seek it is relevant. This is because we are entitled to live in a place where it is free from harmful elements. Some smokers would say that they needed to smoke because it can liberate their tension and can relax their mind. It is not really a bad reasoning, but it is deceiving. It is true that it can release tension but it is also dangerous for one’s health.

The addictive drug which is nicotine that can be found in tobacco and even cigarette smoke is harmful to the lungs of a person. It will also lead to acute increases in heart rate and blood pressure, something that cannot just be taken for granted. Aside from that, it increases blood clotting and platelet aggregation.

The problem regarding the effects of smoking does not fall only with smokers. It is more dangerous for non-smokers who can get more percentage of harmful smoke than the smokers. Non-smokers that are exposed to people who are smokers may have more risk of particular diseases especially if they suffer high blood pressure. Thus, they should not be exposed to smoking to avoid the greater risk of being affected by it.

It is also true that every person has the right to express one’s self. Smokers have the right to smoke in order to make them free from tension. However, it is also true that non-smokers have the right not to be exposed to a smoking environment. It is a matter of respect and discipline. There are many instances that the government implements a ban on smoking in public places and that are a good start. A person may smoke in private places to avoid eventual damage to others. Finally, the government should stop importing smoking materials or may opt to raise the prices and taxes of the same under its regulatory power.

I believe that taking a serious effort in controlling gun ownership is a relevant position in society. There is nothing wrong in taking diligent efforts to always choose safety than negligence. With that, we can be sure of living in a more organized and safe environment.

Gun ownership is basically normal especially if it was necessary and work-related. However, it was strictly subject to limitations. The right to keep and bear arms remains legitimate but should be under certain restrictions. The right to own and keep guns and ammunitions does not include ownership of military-style guns. These firearms are actually assaulted weapons that are not good to be exposed and used just by anyone. It will just hamper the smooth flow of activities in the society.

There are so many reasons why gun control should be implemented. The ultimate reason is the prevention of firearms-related violence such as murder, robbery, and even homicide. Because of the easy access to ways and means in gun ownership, people that are branded as criminals tend to abuse the same. Most of the crimes that are committed by criminals were due to ownership of firearms of whatever kind. Then, it should be curtailed if only to lessen violence around us. Another reason is the needed protection for children. It is not good for children to be exposed to violence and other things related to it. Besides, exposure to guns and ammunitions will create a negative impression among children.

It will also increase the crime rate in localities where the youth are present but no properly guided. The more they freely use firearms, the more it is easy for them to kill innocent human beings. Mostly, the reason for this is robbery or theft for them to buy prohibited drugs if they are addicted to it. Finally, what is needed in implementing gun control is raising the age limitation for gun ownership and limiting also the number of guns a person can buy. There should also be an intensive background check for those who want to purchase guns.

I believe that the family has the greatest responsibility for ill health whenever there is a member who is affected with illness. Ill health is a condition that cannot just be taken for granted. There should be a moral and personal commitment to speed up it’s healing.

In the society today, people are health conscious albeit they always keep the lifestyle that is not healthy. Some are not comfortable if there are people in their community who are sick. This is so when the sickness is airborne and incurable. More so, when the sickness can cause infection to other people.

It was not fair for people who do not have the sickness but later on got the same because of negligence. That is why it is important that ill health should be given greater weight in terms of attention for healing. Members of the family should help each other to take care someone in the home who is sick.

However, it cannot be avoided that there are people who are sick that are separated from their family for some reasons. In fact, some of them appear in public places because nobody cares for them. It is the responsibility of the government to bring this sick person to proper institutions that could take care of them.

There are also families who cannot afford to take care of their relatives who are sick because of lack of budget due to the seriousness of the disease like cancer. This situation should be anticipated by the government and be part of the planning for social welfare services catered by the same. The responsibility of ill health should also extend to children who are sick. They should be given more attention because their resistance to diseases is not that strong. Besides, careful use of medication services is necessary to make sure that the patient will be totally healed in time. Finally, responsibility for ill health is anyone’s responsibility in the society.

Did it help you?