Is stem cell research ethical? NO

It began in 1981 with a mouse, then in 1995 with a primate and finally with the breakthrough of humans in 1998 through in vitro fertilization.

As with any other commentary, I will offer a disclaimer and caution my readers that this is not an opinion about abortion or one objecting to all forms of stem cell research, particularly embryonic stem cell use. Creating human embryos solely for the purpose of producing stem cells is unethical on many levels; this issue of morals and researches' responsibility is one that has been disputed since the inception of stem cell research. The process of creating a human life, purposefully, without the intent of fulfilling said life, is inhumane.

This is an inappropriate use of scientific skill. Producing embryonic stem cells exclusively for research treats human life as a commodity that can just be massed produced. Sen. John McCain, said it best when he responded at the 2008 Science Debate, "While I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific."

McCain and others with similar viewpoints agree while stem cell research is beneficial, curing and treating afflictions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and some heart diseases, it should be executed in a moralistic way.

Here's a senario: A woman gets pregnant with a baby, but five months into her pregnancy she wants to give birth despite fatal risks. The woman tells the doctor she absolutely needs to have the baby. After further questioning the doctor finds out the mother has a young son in the hospital, with a deadly, debilitating disease, who desperately needs the stem cells the baby can provide through the umbilical cord.

The doctor has an ethical decision to make. Should she help the woman who only got pregnant to kill her baby? Should the doctor induce labor and risk the life of an infant through premature birth or should she go through with the birth and assist the woman's son?

Though the doctor, as advised by colleagues, initially refuses to induce labor, the woman breaks her water with a knitting needle, thus forcing the birth and killing the baby.

We can parallel this scenario to the concept of embryonic stem cell use when researchers produce embryos and destroy them just to assist research. Those who plead that embryonic stem cells are the most beneficial and believe all other processes of acquiring stem cells are inferior are wrong.

The Congressional Research Services Report for Congress on Stem Cell Research states there are several ways to receive stem cells without the destruction of embryos. Through the use of already deceased embryos, embryo biopsies, biological artifacts or altered nuclear transfer, dedifferentiation of somatic cells and stem cells from adult tissue or umbilical cord blood, researchers can provide the same benefits of using created embryonic stem cells.

Though many may see no ethical problem with the creation of embryos to destroy, I challenge them to think of previous breakthroughs in this field.

First it was a small animal, then a big animal, then a person, then fetal farming, then therapeutic cloning of organs, then cloning sheep, what next? Humans? Sometimes the moral line gets so blurred we don't know where to draw it and when to stop.

1 comments

Zane Petersen

Sun Nov 22 2009 21:04

Let me start by saying that your scenario was clever. It employed a faulty syllogism, but it was nevertheless creative. There is a difference between destroying the "life" of a week-old zygote and aborting well into the first trimester. What's more, I agree with abortion, but this does not make my claim better than yours, being opinion-related. It's just that we're overpopulated as it is, and nobody's going to benefit from another waste of resources. I won't use the term utilitarian, having soiled itself by myopically insinuating that humans are the only inhabitants of the planet. No, I'll use a term I've developed that I think more fairly presents our case: Modified-Jainist-Utilitarianism. It's modified in that it doesn't require our spiritual involvement, but takes into account the conveniently omitted among us. If you would like to reply, my email address is factoree666@yahoo.com.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out