Introduction
The benefits to society by the introduction of new medical technologies have been considerable. For example, the introduction of vaccines and antibiotics has significantly improved the well-being of people all over the globe. The science of stem cell treatments, potentially as or more significant than these other innovations, is beginning a new stage of exploration and growth that could be the forerunner of unprecedented cures and therapies. The present enthusiasm over prospective stem cell-produced remedies radiates from the new innovations of genetic biology.
Though one cannot forecast the results from basic research, there is enough information available to suggest that a good deal of this enthusiasm is justified.
Main text
The moral dilemma that surrounds the prohibition of aborted fetuses is the idea of abortion itself. Why would pro-lifers want to witness what they believe is a living being tossed away in vain? At least its ‘life’ could have meant something to humanity in a very real way. In 1999 alone, more than 850,000 abortions were performed in the U.S. (Elam-Evans et al, 2002). Whatever moral or political position, the fact is, all these fetuses could have served advance scientific and medical knowledge in immeasurable ways. Abortion laws vary state by state but the vast majority allow for abortions to be performed at least through the second trimester, 24 weeks into the pregnancy. This limitation was derived from the neurological point of view, which conforms to our society’s distinctness for the death as the absence of a cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. This same definition must therefore also define life as there are no alternatives to these two options. The presence of the EEG pattern of a fetus can be detected approximately 27 weeks into the pregnancy. An embryo is referred to as a fetus at about seven to eight weeks following fertilization. At about four to five weeks, embryonic germ cells, about 2 mm long, are developing (Morowitz & Trefil, 1992).
More than half of European countries and others around the world such as Japan allow for embryonic stem cell research in various degrees. Australia followed the UK in allowing the use of tissue from aborted fetuses, with the parent’s consent, for scientific experimentation. “Here in Australia we would be allowed to use it [aborted fetus for embryonic research]. There would be no impediment to that” (Robotham & Smith, 2002). According to Health-Day, a daily news service reporting on consumer health, Swiss physicians at the University of Lausanne discovered that a two-and-a-half-inch piece of skin from a fetus, which was aborted at 14 weeks, provided several million grafts that were used to treat burn victims. The study also found that skin cells from an aborted fetus healed burns faster than standard grafts. Patrick Hohlfeld, the prime author of the study said “the use of fetal skin has tremendous potential because taking just one skin graft gives you the potential to treat thousands of people” (Strode, 2005).
Scientists provide the valid argument that embryos cannot be considered humans because of their stage of development. Embryonic stem cells are collected from embryos that are four to five days old. In this stage of development, they are called blastocysts and are smaller in diameter than a human hair. When viewed by a microscope, the blastocyst contains fewer than 200 cells and had no features that are recognizable as human nor has the capacity to feel any sensations including pain. An embryo only four or five days old does not yet contain any cells that are dedicated to making up bodily tissues. “Stem cells have traditionally been defined as not fully differentiated yet to be any particular type of cell or tissue” (Irving, 1999). An embryo this young in a woman’s body would not have as yet attached to the uterine wall. Therefore, the viability of the embryo is certainly not assured and is, in fact, unlikely. It can be argued that it could not possess a soul as well, at least not an individual soul.
Summary
Political, not prudent considerations are the cause of the stifling of embryonic stem cell research. Other countries will be much further advanced in this science and therefore reap the financial benefits. However, despite the human health and economic advantages of embryonic stem cell research, the ‘moralists’ of the right-wing refuse to give up their flawed reasoning. This is likely the result of refusing to become educated on the issue while employing a neutral, unbiased frame of mind. Inevitably, stem cell research will be commonplace and hopefully sooner than later but until then many people will continue to suffer from debilitating diseases and paralysis. Where is the morality in that? Who are these people that consider the life of a living human being less important than a four or five-day-old embryo?
Works Cited
Elam-Evans, Laurie D.; Strauss, Lilo T.; Herndon, Joy; Parker, Wilda Y.; Whitehead, Sara; & Berg, Cynthia J. “Abortion Surveillance – United States, 1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control. (2002).
Irving, Dianne N.
“Stem Cell Research: Some Pros and Cons.” Written on request of Fr. Thomas King, S.J., Ph.D., Department of Theology, Georgetown University; President, University Faculty For Life, for their newsletter, UFL Pro-Vita. (1999).
Morowitz, H. J. & Trefil, J. S. The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press. (1992).
Robotham, Julie & Smith, Deborah. “Abortions Set to Fuel Stem Cell Research.” The Sydney Morning Herald. (2002).
Strode, Tom. “Life Digest: New Stem Cell Research Encouraging but Problematic; Researchers Find New Use for Aborted Babies.” Baptist Press News. (2005).