While many people agree that medical advances should be geared towards the treatment of incurable diseases, opponents of stem cell research adopt this position due to the harvesting of stem cells for medical research or practice. Incidentally, embryos have to be killed to make stem cell research meet its objectives. Thus, the argument against stem cell research is grounded on the destruction of embryos for human benefit. Human life is sanctified and it begins at conception.
According to Christianity, it is at conception that the characteristics of conception and cellular differentiation are noted. This genetic uniqueness when nurtured under appropriate natural reproductive environment has the ability to grow into a fully fledged human life. Since human life is sacred from conception, embryos are in themselves the image of God, sanctified and destined for eternal life. Destroying such a life is therefore immoral and unethical.
Moreover, such destruction amounts to using killing vulnerable human life to achieve certain benefits for the fully fledged human life. Legalizing embryonic stem cell research simply means abetting an evil act to reap the potential of the pluripotent cells. Subsequently, such a legalization would also open the door to potential cloning of human cells hence the possibility of serious genetic results cannot possibly be obviated (Ostor 207) The analogy between a brain dead human and a not yet sentient human embryo is refuted by opponents of stem cell research on the basis of potentiality.
This argument posits that even though the presentient embryo may morally be given the same status as that of a dead brained person, the embryo still has the potential to develop into am fully fledged sentient human life given a conducive environment whereas the latter has no potential. Given this potentiality, it is thus claimed that embryos deserve the same moral status as that of a fully fledged person (Werner 6). This means that it is morally impermissible to carry out embryonic stem cell research. Conclusion The stem cell research controversy emanates from the conflict between scientific, religious and ethical beliefs.
While science has proven that stem cell research has the potential to eliminate or cure so many diseases and disorders that are currently incurable, debilitating and taking a huge toll on the worlds population, crucial issues of the ethics of stem cell research with regard to respect and sanctity of life, personhood, possibility of technology misuse, and the argument that adult stem cells are capable of achieving unlimited self renewal and pluripotency has put a obstacle in the full legalization of embryonic stem cell research.
This calls for an honest and critical analysis of the benefits and dangers of stem cell research to the human race against conflicting interests, opinions and beliefs. Human embryonic stem cell research is morally and ethically right. The use of these cells in disease treatment and prevention of disability is a moral cause. While disagreements have centered on the nature of their derivation, it is known that women donate embryos based on a voluntary and informed consent.
Currently there are stringent measures to prevent any potential abuse of the technology thus the slippery slope argument of the legalization leading to human cloning is unfortunate. Harvesting embryos do not in any way constitute harm to any human beings simply because they are not sentient. Moreover, by harvesting these embryos and utilizing them in therapeutic practice, medicine achieves its age old objectives of healing, prevention and advancing research.