English Argumentative Essay
Should embryonic stem cell research carry on?

Embryonic stem cell research creates an ethical dilemma. It forces us to choose between two moral principles: the duty to prevent or lessen the suffering; or the duty to respect the value of human life. In embryonic stem cell research, it is impossible to respect both moral principles. To get embryonic stem cells, the early embryo has to be destroyed. This means destroying a potential human life. But embryonic stem cell research could lead to the discovery of new medical treatments that would lessen the suffering of many people. So which moral principle should have the upper hand in this situation? The answer hinges on how we view the embryo. Does it have the status of a person?

Some say it does, as many people think of an embryo as a fully-grown human. The reason for this is the fact that, once an egg is fertilized, unless stopped, it will grow into a fully-grown adult. This opinion is often related to religious rules which state that conception marks the beginning of human life or the presence of a soul. It has been argued that "the line at which an embryo becomes a human life remains as chance as ever".

Others argue that embryos are not humans, believing that the life of Homo sapiens only begins when the heartbeat develops, which is during the 5th week of pregnancy, or when the brain begins working, which is about 54 days after conception. Embryos are of value, however they are not equivalent to a human life (fully-grown human) as they are not able to exist outside the womb (i.e. they only have the potential for life). About 18% of zygotes do not implant after conception. Therefore many embryos are lost due to chance rather than to be used for embryonic stem cell research or treatments. Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue; making cells of the inner cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell.

On the other hand, viability - the ability of a thing (a living organism, an artificial system, an idea, etc.) to maintain itself - is another standard in which embryos and fetuses have been regarded as human lives. In the United States, the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade concluded that viability determined the permissibility of abortions performed for reasons other than the protection of the woman's health, defining viability as the point at which a fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, even if with artificial aid." The point of viability was 24 to 28 weeks when the case was decided and has since moved to about 22 weeks due to development in medical technology. If further technological advances allowing a sperm and egg to be combined and fully developed completely outside of the womb, an embryo will be viable as soon as it is conceived. Therefore according to the viability standard, life will begin at conception.

However the benefits of stem cell research outweigh the cost in terms of embryonic life. Embryonic stem cells have the capability to grow indefinitely in a laboratory environment and can separate into almost all types of bodily tissue. This makes embryonic stem cells an attractive prospect for cellular therapies to treat a wide range of diseases. The social, economic and personal costs of the diseases that embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat are a much better choice than the money used for the destruction of embryos (abortions).

In conclusion I think that embryonic stem cell research should carry on and not be stop or banned as, why waste the embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway from people taking abortions? Why not use these embryos (from abortions) to do the research on, they were not ‘wanted’ in the first place. Therefore those who say we should get rid of embryonic stem cell research because it is ‘killing human lives’ then we should also get rid of abortions too as that is also killing human lives.