Stem cell research is controversial because this raises questions like; Is it right to kill an embryo for cures to save other people’s lives? Or, if we don’t proceed, is it right to make those who can benefit from this research suffer? I don’t think that we should continue with this research because of many reasons, the most important being an embryo is living, and we humans have no right to kill other humans and not have consequences.
One might say that it is not cruel to kill embryos because they will be discarded anyway. This is true, but they can also be adopted by couples who would like to have children but aren’t able to. Another reason is that even if they are discarded, they will die with respect instead of in a Petrie dish where they can be mutilated. In the 1995 encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II wrote: “Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and are subjects with rights; their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable ‘biological material’” (Pope John Paul II in Moran, 2003).
Another reason for not proceeding with embryonic stem cell research is that the cost for the research may be greater than the benefits, especially for the government. Some also say that approval to fund embryonic stem cell research may lead to direct federal funding for abortion, which is not allowed because this could be used as an argument that embryos are not human beings. On the other hand, there are many positive advances towards the future of science such as, scientists are learning about the earliest stages of human development, which can help detect birth defects that can contribute to infertility. Another advance is new methods for screening and testing new drugs.
This is because there would be less testing on animals and humans because they would use stem cells instead. (Walters, 2003) While this is true, scientists still only understand basic biology while trying to explore more advanced biology and physiology.
Another important reason why I am so against stem cell research is that it will ruin homeostasis in the environment. One of the most important factors to keeping homeostasis in humans and animals is random selection, which means that you can not choose what a person mates with or the outcome of the offspring. (Mahowald, 2003) This raises the question of and we are choosing the mates and how the embryo will look? They would say no, that they are just taking specific cells and using them to cure diseases. This is true but what about the children who are born with diseases? And who is deciding which embryos live and which die, playing God?
The final argument is that we may get the hopes up of people and these experiments may not even work. We will have taken everything these people know, such as hope and money, and they don’t even get a guarantee? Also, if it did work, where would the families get the money for rehabilitation and for surgery to have this done? The government would have to spend more money to help families pay their bills.
Even though many movie stars and families are for embryonic stem cell research, they still need to remember what they believe in, love and family. As Andrew Sullivan said in the New York Times, “Life should be measured not by how long it is lived but how it is lived” some thing can not simply be bargained or rationalized away and surly life is one of them.” (Holland, 2001) Some would argue that because human embryos do not resemble human beings, they should not be considered human beings and that they do not deserve the basic rights of all other living creatures. The fact is, human embryos resemble exactly what they are, human beings in the embryonic stage of their development. Human embryos, once formed, are whole living beings that have the ability to develop into adult human beings using resources from within itself.
It has been argued that location and stage of development should be a factor in determining whether a human being should be denied rights or not. (Juengst, 2000) Does it matter if the embryo is one day old or eight months old? If we use these arguments for the basis of our decisions regarding embryonic stem cell research, we are likely to contradict ourselves. Claiming that because a human embryo is not fully developed and able to survive on its own is a good reason to deny them basic human rights would be like saying a baby that was born prematurely, without the ability to survive outside the womb on its own does not deserve every medical attempt to save its life.
The argument exists that because some embryos are created in petri dishes and require implantation into a womb to achieve their full potential that they should not be considered human life, and therefore, can be denied basic human rights. Isn’t it true, however, that regardless of location, human embryos, whether located in a dish or a womb, carry the same characteristics? The only difference is one was created naturally inside the mother and the other was created by scientific means.
We fight to save children who were unfortunate to be brought into this world under less than acceptable conditions. Children born in Ethiopia deserve the same fundamental rights as children born in the United States. Food and safety is something that should be afforded to all human beings. Therefore, location is not a basis for determining human rights.
An argument that appears to be very contradictory is the argument for the use of existing stem cells and against the creation of new stem cells. This argument has conflicting ethical ideas in its reasoning. Saying that it is wrong to create new embryos specifically for destructive research because they are human beings but it is acceptable to destroy existing embryos because they will be disposed of anyway is contradictory reasoning. Human value is not determined by its expected lifespan.
If it is acceptable to use an embryo that is expected to last only a short period of time is should also be acceptable to perform open brain surgery that will surely end the life of a patient who is already dying of a brain tumor in the interest of medical advancements. Some might argue that allowing the destruction of embryos may lead to an increased tolerance to loss of life, including late-term abortions and treatment withdrawal for the severely disabled. This is why we should put a stop to this abuse and disrespect for human life before it is too late.
References
Holland, Suzanne. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. Boston: MIT Press, 2001.
Juengst, Eric and Michael Fossel. “The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cells-Now and Forever, Cells Without End.” JAMA 284.24 (2000): 3180-84.
Mahowald, Mary B. “Reflections on the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46.1 (2003): 131-41.
Moran, Jim. “Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” The Humanist 63.4 (2003): 41.
Walters, Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Intercultural Perspective, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14, no. 1 (2004): 3-38.