I still need a beginning paragraph, and I plan on having more supporting information. And a title. But this is basically it.
Using embryonic stem-cells to treat diseases is wrong and unneeded. An embryo, the beginning of human life, is created and then destroyed for the sake of treating another’s disease, but it’s unnecessary to do so. Adult stem-cells work just as well, don’t require this destruction, and can come from the sick person themselves, so there is less of a chance of them rejecting the treatment (Underwood). It is wrong to destroy what is indisputably the beginning of human life for the sake of embryonic stem-cell research when adult stem-cells are proven to be more effective.
Embryonic stem-cells are cells that are extracted from a certain part of an embryo, as the name describes, but this cannot be done without the resultant destruction of the embryo itself (Stem). It is theorized that they can be used cure genetic diseases and even regenerate organs, but “despite millions of dollars of research, not one--not one--embryonic stem-cell trial has resulted in the successful treatment of a human patient” (Forbes).
Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, are cells taken from the tissues of us grown humans. Again, a pretty self-explanatory name. They’ve actually been successful in saving people’s lives in surgeries. Not only that, but scientists have discovered a way to alter adult stem-cells so that they function exactly the way embryonic stem-cells do. “These cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), can do everything an embryonic stem cell is capable of, only without having to destroy a human embryo” (Forbes). Also, with adult stem-cells coming from the patient themselves, it’s more likely that their body will not reject the treatment and they can be well again.
“Over the years, adult stem cells have resulted in 73 successful treatments for various diseases like Alzheimer's, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and various forms of cancer” (Forbes). So, I ask you, if adult stem-cells are obviously working so well and embryonic stem-cells have yet to show any successes, why do we bother with them?
For some reason, scientists still have reservations about using adult-stem cells over embryonic. Last year, a clinical trial was conducted in which ten people, paralyzed from the waist down, received a low-dose treatment of embryonic stem-cells injected into their spinal cords. “Although it's not clear yet whether the treatment is effective or safe, the restoration of even partial [motor function] would be a huge advance” (Underwood).
However, the article reporting this also said scientists were reluctant to use the newly discovered iPS cells: “[They]… will not be used as replacement tissue for spinal cords and other organs. Because iPS cells have subtle (and potentially dangerous) differences from true embryonic stem cells, many doctors are leery of putting them directly into patients …” (Underwood). But wait, didn’t we just see above that we weren’t sure if embryonic stem-cells were safe, either? So we have established that both iPS adult stem-cells and embryonic stem-cells are not determined to be completely safe, and we’ve also established that iPS cells have garnered much more success thus far. Which one would you bet your money on to be more helpful?
So here we are, wasting money on embryonic stem-cell research when adult stem-cells are ethical and work more effectively to treat diseases conditions such as paralysis.
In addition, using an embryo as treatment for diseases is killing a baby. Could you do that morally? If you think that it’s not murder, just answer these questions.
Would you kill a perfectly healthy eight-year-old? Probably not, assuming you’re not a psycho serial killer. How about an equally healthy five-year-old? I’m guessing that you would not extinguish the life of a two-year-old or baby just born an hour ago. But would you kill the baby the day before it was born, or a month?
At which point, in your opinion, does the embryo start being human?
Whatever your view is in this aspect, embryos are undeniably the start of a human life. To cut off that life at the very beginning is to stop that adorable, smiling baby from coming into the world and making something great. The unrealized potential for the embryo is astounding.
Luckily, this doesn’t have to happen anymore. Adult stem-cells have already surpassed embryonic stem-cells in their ability to treat diseases and conditions like paralysis, and they already show promise in curing genetic diseases such as Huntington’s (insert citation here). Whether using embryos in stem-cell research is murder in your eyes or not, it’s true that adult-stem cells are more effective in making people healthy. If only scientists would see that too…
Monday, November 8, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
First bit of free-choice essay. No bookends yet, or title.
I flip-flopped on topics a bit, but finally settled on embryonic stem-cell research.
Using embryonic stem-cells to treat diseases is wrong and unneeded. An embryo, the beginning of human life, is created and then destroyed for the sake of treating another’s disease, but it’s unnecessary to do so. Adult stem-cells work just as well, don’t require killing a child, and can come from the sick person themselves, so there is less of a chance of them rejecting the treatment (Underwood). It is wrong to destroy what is indisputably the beginning of human life for the sake of embryonic stem-cell research when adult stem-cells are proven to be more effective.
Embryonic stem-cells are cells that are extracted from an embryo, as the name describes, but this cannot be done without the resultant destruction of the embryo itself (Stem). They theoretically can be used cure genetic diseases and even regenerate organs, but “despite millions of dollars of research, not one--not one--embryonic stem-cell trial has resulted in the successful treatment of a human patient” (Forbes).
Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, are cells taken from the tissues of us grown humans. Again, a pretty self-explanatory name. They’ve actually been successful in saving people’s lives in surgeries. Not only that, but scientists have discovered a way to alter adult stem-cells so that they function exactly the way embryonic stem-cells do. “These cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), can do everything an embryonic stem cell is capable of, only without having to destroy a human embryo. Because of this development, there is likely no medical benefit that can come from embryonic stem-cell research that cannot be obtained from adult stem cells” (Forbes). Also, with adult stem-cells coming from the patient themselves, it’s more likely that their body will not reject the treatment and they can be well again.
“Over the years, adult stem cells have resulted in 73 successful treatments for various diseases like Alzheimer's, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and various forms of cancer” (Forbes). So, I ask you, if adult stem-cells are obviously working so well and embryonic stem-cells have yet to show any successes, why do we bother with them?
Using embryonic stem-cells to treat diseases is wrong and unneeded. An embryo, the beginning of human life, is created and then destroyed for the sake of treating another’s disease, but it’s unnecessary to do so. Adult stem-cells work just as well, don’t require killing a child, and can come from the sick person themselves, so there is less of a chance of them rejecting the treatment (Underwood). It is wrong to destroy what is indisputably the beginning of human life for the sake of embryonic stem-cell research when adult stem-cells are proven to be more effective.
Embryonic stem-cells are cells that are extracted from an embryo, as the name describes, but this cannot be done without the resultant destruction of the embryo itself (Stem). They theoretically can be used cure genetic diseases and even regenerate organs, but “despite millions of dollars of research, not one--not one--embryonic stem-cell trial has resulted in the successful treatment of a human patient” (Forbes).
Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, are cells taken from the tissues of us grown humans. Again, a pretty self-explanatory name. They’ve actually been successful in saving people’s lives in surgeries. Not only that, but scientists have discovered a way to alter adult stem-cells so that they function exactly the way embryonic stem-cells do. “These cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), can do everything an embryonic stem cell is capable of, only without having to destroy a human embryo. Because of this development, there is likely no medical benefit that can come from embryonic stem-cell research that cannot be obtained from adult stem cells” (Forbes). Also, with adult stem-cells coming from the patient themselves, it’s more likely that their body will not reject the treatment and they can be well again.
“Over the years, adult stem cells have resulted in 73 successful treatments for various diseases like Alzheimer's, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and various forms of cancer” (Forbes). So, I ask you, if adult stem-cells are obviously working so well and embryonic stem-cells have yet to show any successes, why do we bother with them?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Complete Draft - and yes, I know I still have work to do. Plus a title.
When an eight-year-old child is bored, you don’t expect her to go after books as her first choice of relief from said boredom. However, one sleepy Friday afternoon, that’s exactly what I did while visiting my grandparents in their California home. My siblings were off on their own doing who knows what, and there were a few convenient shelves just around the corner full of books that used to belong to my aunts and uncles. I had read a lot of the books on the lower shelves already, specifically the Nancy Drew books, and was looking for something new. As my eyes roamed the titles, they alighted upon a name: Judy Blume. I recognized her name from Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, so I figured something else good had to come from her. Later, my grandma caught me reading her book, Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret, a coming-of-age novel intended for teenage girl. She took it away from me quickly, explaining, “This book isn’t appropriate for you, Annie. Maybe you can read it some other time.”
Limiting the book selection available for young children is, unfortunately, a necessary evil. We have to take away the book when something inside might be too inappropriate or too scary for an eight-year-old. As we get older, the content of books is not a problem where appropriateness is concerned, and you’d think that would mean we would be allowed to access any type of literature. However, there are those that seek to prevent that from happening by challenging books, trying to prevent them from remaining on the shelves of libraries across the nation. But as grown-ups, we have to be able to handle literature of any kind that is out there now, and there’s no point in keeping us in the dark then. Besides, just because a “harmful” type of literature is out there doesn’t mean we have to expose ourselves to it. It’s a choice. So, censorship of books may be necessary for toddlers and elementary school kids, but as we get older, censorship becomes a hindrance. The banning of books as a form of censorship is simply unfair.
Parents don’t want their children exposed to vulgarity, violence, or overly mature topics when they read, and it’s perfectly understandable for them to prevent them from reading books containing such material when their children are younger. But some people in the community take that censorship too far, trying to protect not only their own children but everyone in the community from the so-called bad influences or topics in books. That is where the censorship of books gets to be a problem.
Public and school libraries are constantly challenged by upset parents who claim that some books on their shelves should be removed. They argue that the material is inappropriate or in some other way mentally harmful to readers. But you’d think that people would trust others to make good decisions about what they read. Besides, “harmful” books have even included a picture book entitled Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, in which all of the characters were animals. That one was banned in one library because the police took offense at the fact that the police in the book were portrayed as pigs (List).
The parents of young readers can help their children pick appropriate reading material, and older readers should be expected to choose books that they feel comfortable with. The banning of books is restricting our right to choose what we read. Censoring should fall to parents when it pertains to their children, not the government-funded public libraries. And when it comes to adults choosing for themselves, isn’t that what we are meant to do? If a person finds a book offensive or overly creepy, he or she doesn’t have to read it. But just because they don’t like it doesn’t mean others are of the same opinion.
Over 6,000 books have been challenged across the country since 1990, and it’s estimated that only ¼ of such challenges are ever actually reported (Muse, 22). To make matters worse, 546 books were challenged in 2006 alone, a 30% increase from the year before (Souza). These people are trying to tell others what they should and shouldn’t read, and that’s not acceptable. Maybe your parents can tell you what you can and can’t do, but are you about to let someone you don’t even know tell you that Sylvester and the Magic Pebble is not appropriate for you?
Sometimes, it’s the best books that are falling through the cracks. For example, the Harry Potter series, which supposed promotes witchcraft, is the most-challenged series in history according to the ALA (“Should Schools Ban…”, Souza). But, the series has also sold over 400 million copies worldwide and hooked children worldwide on books (“Harry Potter”). The Giver, written by Lois Lowry, is on the ALA 100 most-challenged books list for 1990-2000, as many have complained of its alleged sexual explicitness and violence (Souza). However, the book was required reading in my middle school for seventh graders, and it’s a book that serves as a warning to the world for what may happen if society becomes controlling. Not only that, but George Orwell’s 1984 is among one of the top banned books of the 20th century (EDITORIAL). This particular book has left such an indelible mark on society, with the movie and the warnings of “Big Brother,” that banning it would do nothing anyway. What’s the point in trying?
Books like 1984 that are important for adults to read are being banned without shame. Most of the time, books are challenged because the material is inappropriate for younger readers or for the target audience. Well, who’s to decide what’s appropriate for a child and what’s not?
Parents are the ones to decide. If you’re a parent, do you like the idea of your young kid reading stories about violent killings? Probably not. So, I’m guessing that you wouldn’t let your child read that violent story until they were older, if they still had any interest. But being an adult yourself, do you like the idea of other adults telling you what you and your child can and can’t read?
Well, that’s exactly what those who seek to ban books are doing. With every challenge comes the chance that a book will be taken off the shelves, whisked away into a void from which they will never reappear.
Books that include violence, profanity, vulgarity, or strongly offensive views on religion are the ones that the banners want to hide. However, all of these things exist in real life, and are unavoidable there. We can’t try to block out the real world from literature. “Exposure to a broad array of thoughts, ideas and material better prepares each of us – even children – to think for ourselves and make informed decisions throughout life” (EDITORIAL).
So, six years after I first picked up Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret, I decided to take another look. It turns out that there was definitely some content in there that was inappropriate for my age back then, but it was nothing to me now. Another curiosity concerning the book is that it has actually been challenged and even banned for what is simply “teenage girl” content in the real world (need to cite here). Looking back on it, I wouldn’t let my eight-year-old self read it.But I wouldn’t let it be banned, because who knows? I’m guessing eight-year-olds aren’t always the ones who want to read it anyway.
Limiting the book selection available for young children is, unfortunately, a necessary evil. We have to take away the book when something inside might be too inappropriate or too scary for an eight-year-old. As we get older, the content of books is not a problem where appropriateness is concerned, and you’d think that would mean we would be allowed to access any type of literature. However, there are those that seek to prevent that from happening by challenging books, trying to prevent them from remaining on the shelves of libraries across the nation. But as grown-ups, we have to be able to handle literature of any kind that is out there now, and there’s no point in keeping us in the dark then. Besides, just because a “harmful” type of literature is out there doesn’t mean we have to expose ourselves to it. It’s a choice. So, censorship of books may be necessary for toddlers and elementary school kids, but as we get older, censorship becomes a hindrance. The banning of books as a form of censorship is simply unfair.
Parents don’t want their children exposed to vulgarity, violence, or overly mature topics when they read, and it’s perfectly understandable for them to prevent them from reading books containing such material when their children are younger. But some people in the community take that censorship too far, trying to protect not only their own children but everyone in the community from the so-called bad influences or topics in books. That is where the censorship of books gets to be a problem.
Public and school libraries are constantly challenged by upset parents who claim that some books on their shelves should be removed. They argue that the material is inappropriate or in some other way mentally harmful to readers. But you’d think that people would trust others to make good decisions about what they read. Besides, “harmful” books have even included a picture book entitled Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, in which all of the characters were animals. That one was banned in one library because the police took offense at the fact that the police in the book were portrayed as pigs (List).
The parents of young readers can help their children pick appropriate reading material, and older readers should be expected to choose books that they feel comfortable with. The banning of books is restricting our right to choose what we read. Censoring should fall to parents when it pertains to their children, not the government-funded public libraries. And when it comes to adults choosing for themselves, isn’t that what we are meant to do? If a person finds a book offensive or overly creepy, he or she doesn’t have to read it. But just because they don’t like it doesn’t mean others are of the same opinion.
Over 6,000 books have been challenged across the country since 1990, and it’s estimated that only ¼ of such challenges are ever actually reported (Muse, 22). To make matters worse, 546 books were challenged in 2006 alone, a 30% increase from the year before (Souza). These people are trying to tell others what they should and shouldn’t read, and that’s not acceptable. Maybe your parents can tell you what you can and can’t do, but are you about to let someone you don’t even know tell you that Sylvester and the Magic Pebble is not appropriate for you?
Sometimes, it’s the best books that are falling through the cracks. For example, the Harry Potter series, which supposed promotes witchcraft, is the most-challenged series in history according to the ALA (“Should Schools Ban…”, Souza). But, the series has also sold over 400 million copies worldwide and hooked children worldwide on books (“Harry Potter”). The Giver, written by Lois Lowry, is on the ALA 100 most-challenged books list for 1990-2000, as many have complained of its alleged sexual explicitness and violence (Souza). However, the book was required reading in my middle school for seventh graders, and it’s a book that serves as a warning to the world for what may happen if society becomes controlling. Not only that, but George Orwell’s 1984 is among one of the top banned books of the 20th century (EDITORIAL). This particular book has left such an indelible mark on society, with the movie and the warnings of “Big Brother,” that banning it would do nothing anyway. What’s the point in trying?
Books like 1984 that are important for adults to read are being banned without shame. Most of the time, books are challenged because the material is inappropriate for younger readers or for the target audience. Well, who’s to decide what’s appropriate for a child and what’s not?
Parents are the ones to decide. If you’re a parent, do you like the idea of your young kid reading stories about violent killings? Probably not. So, I’m guessing that you wouldn’t let your child read that violent story until they were older, if they still had any interest. But being an adult yourself, do you like the idea of other adults telling you what you and your child can and can’t read?
Well, that’s exactly what those who seek to ban books are doing. With every challenge comes the chance that a book will be taken off the shelves, whisked away into a void from which they will never reappear.
Books that include violence, profanity, vulgarity, or strongly offensive views on religion are the ones that the banners want to hide. However, all of these things exist in real life, and are unavoidable there. We can’t try to block out the real world from literature. “Exposure to a broad array of thoughts, ideas and material better prepares each of us – even children – to think for ourselves and make informed decisions throughout life” (EDITORIAL).
So, six years after I first picked up Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret, I decided to take another look. It turns out that there was definitely some content in there that was inappropriate for my age back then, but it was nothing to me now. Another curiosity concerning the book is that it has actually been challenged and even banned for what is simply “teenage girl” content in the real world (need to cite here). Looking back on it, I wouldn’t let my eight-year-old self read it.But I wouldn’t let it be banned, because who knows? I’m guessing eight-year-olds aren’t always the ones who want to read it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)