Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay

1948 Words8 Pages

Some cells in our body have the unique potential to develop into “specialised” cell types (like nerve or muscle cells). These “unspecialized” cells are called stem cells and they can be used in the body either for replenishment and repair, or for growth and development. These stem cells occur at all stages of human development, from embryo to adult but their numbers and versatility tends to decrease with one’s age. Also, given the right conditions in the body, these cells can replicate themselves many times over. Moreover, when stem cells replicate, they can either become specialised cells, or remain as stem cells reserved for use later on.
Embryonic stem cells are formed from the early stages of the embryo. They can potentially develop into …show more content…

In general, the issue is: should scientists be allowed to continue conducting research on the elements within the body known as stem cells; and if so, then in what way should the research agenda proceed? Most of the arguments against this form of research are ideological, whereas the arguments promoting it are more practical. This essay will be supporting stem cell research by showing its benefit to society in alleviating suffering, providing ways in which it can be regulated to avoid worst-case scenarios, and showing the importance of stem cell research in advancing our scientific …show more content…

If people oppose stem cell research, it is generally not because they deny the basic point that there is a moral imperative to alleviate suffering. Instead, they oppose it because they perceive that there are other competing and similarly important imperatives that require limits to be placed on the stem cell research agenda. If there is a point of debate, then it would have to do with the nature of these other moral imperatives and their weights relative to the imperative to alleviate suffering. As such, the argument in favor of stem cell research would seem to proceed on the assumption that the burden of evidence is on the other side. Unless the opposing argument can convincingly demonstrate that the moral imperative to alleviate suffering has been outweighed by other considerations, the assumption can be made that stem cell research should not be