Numerous statements in the article indicate factors such the ethicality of stem cell research, the right to life and an apparent abuse of the human condition as factors against the continued development of this particular branch of science. Suffice it to say such arguments are based on the belief that the condition of a person's apparent humanity starts not just at the moment they are born but at the moment they are conceived. Arguments against this have questioned the apparent validity of such statements since if a zygote does not possess a consciousness and is not aware how could it be considered human in the first place? The debate over stem cell research consists of two parties with one party citing the apparent benefits of the research towards the creation of new medical developments that would save and possibly extend human life and the other citing the murder of the unborn all for the sake of science and development. While both parties have claims to the apparent ethicality and morality of what they are arguing it cannot be stated beyond all reasonable doubt that either side is correct. The fact of the matter is the basis of what can be considered life and what can be considered human are straddling on a fence so to speak. In the debate over stem cell research it can be described as an argument between philosophical thought and scientific reasoning each with its own claims yet neither having definitive proof as to the absolute truth behind their words.
Benefits of Stem Cell Research
In numerous parts throughout the article stem cell research is lauded as a possible medical breakthrough that if pursued could mean the development of treatments that could regenerate damages nerves, organs and muscular tissue. This is due to the fact that stem cells extracted from embryos have the potential to become any type of organ in the human body as such scientists hypothesize that since they have the potential of doing so then all that is needed is the proper scientific method in order to activate this process. On the other hand not all stem cell research primarily consists of extracting stem cells from embryos another possibility lies in the use of stem cells from umbilical cords as an alternative source. This has actually proven to be rather effective in gaining an appropriate amount of stem cells for research however it has yet to be proven if stem cells extracted from umbilical cords are just as viable as those coming from embryos. The basis for using embryos for scientific research is based on scientists claiming that in such cases the ends justify the means with the possibility of saving countless lives taking precedent over ethical arguments towards the abuse of humans that could potentially be born.
Validity of Anti Stem Cell Research Arguments
The claims of several anti stem cell research advocates have been fraught with references to the right to life, to the apparent perversion of the human essence as well other claims stating religious dogma to explain why stem cell research should be stopped. One inherent flaw in their arguments is that while it may be true that a embryo could be considered human in nature but so long as it doesn't possess a consciousness it cannot be considered truly human. These groups claim the right to life of the human embryo and use fallacies of judgment to validate it's apparent humanity when in itself it can be considered just as human as individual sperm and egg, both of which don't possess any inherent consciousness. The fact of the matter is stem cell research presents itself as an opportunity to cure certain diseases and ailments that affect the human condition. It is a well known fact that stem cells possess the ability to become nearly any type of organ in the human body and as such could be used by medical science in order to save lives in the future.
Ethical Treatment of Life
While it may be true that the method of harvesting stem cells does present arguments of ethicality since by harvesting stem cells scientists are in effect denying the right to life of a certain person the fact of the matter is that this action possess the ability to save more than just one life in the future. Organ regeneration, life expectancy extension as well as a host of other benefits could be derived from the possibility of stem cell research. For years humans have used animals as a means of genetic testing in order to find discover drugs that would help cure the most virulent of diseases, numerous people around the world have had to endure backroom organ transplants in order to live, and people have had to suffer from genetic disabilities that they will have to endure for the rest of their lives. Suffice it to say the statement "can't make an omelets without breaking a few eggs" seems to be applicable with the current situation with actual human life being far more valuable than just the mere potential for human life.
Based on the article and on this paper it can be said that stem cell research in itself does possess certain ethical and moral quandaries but inevitably it must be noted that in such a case the potential benefits far outweigh the apparent cost and as such stem cell research should be allowed to continue for the sake of the generation that currently lives and not one that only has the potential to come about.