Pros And Cons Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

What if there was a certain type of cell that could ultimately become any specialized cell in a human body, regenerate at amazing speeds, and potentially cure cancers? The cells that can potentially do this are known as embryonic stem cells. While there are many different types of stem cells, the implications of these cells are limitless; it has the potential to cure many birth defects, cancer, and much more (National Institute of Health, 2016). Another advantage is their ability to potentially regenerate diseased and damaged tissues. (Hyslop, Armstrong, Stojkovic, & Lako, 2005). In order to understand the advantages and implications of stem cells we will first look at the cell from a biological perspective and examine all of its effects and

The issue is specifically in regards to embryonic stem cells due to the killing of the embryo, which some consider to be a form of life. This ethical debate is so important because depending on certain peoples, such as the president’s, view on the matter it impacts many peoples lives both currently and in the future. The main argument is that, as former president Bush said, killing embryo “the taking of innocent human life”. On the other side, people do not view it as taking a life and understand that embryonic stem cells could potentially cure diseases, spinal chord injuries, and many other defects. Also, there is a difference between something being human and something being considered human life. If we consider an embryo human life why is it that any other cell should not be considered “human life”. Furthermore, If one were considering embryonic stem cell research as “taking of innocent human life” should that mean that many researchers should have been accused of manslaughter and completely shut down. The only thing that President Bush had done was block all federal funding towards the research (“Examining the Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research”). We have learned that embryonic stem cells can potentially cure many diseases, regenerate tissues, and ultimately save lives. This raises the ethical questions of whether or not it is immoral to prevent research that can save so many future lives. This also raises the question on whether politicians should be able to make policies in regards to scientific discoveries. Similar to the idea of a separation of church and state, should there not also be separation between politics and science? Is it moral for people’s religious influence as well as possible external agendas to be able to determine whether the nation is for or against life-saving research? All these questions may remain unanswered