I’m currently writing an argumentative research paper in favour of the progress of stem cell research. In layman’s terms, stem cell research involves the extraction of cells – which have the ability to develop into any type of bodily cell – from human embryos. The differentiation ability of these embryonic tissues is nothing short of incredible. In theory, we could literally grow a liver for a patient in need of transplant over a minute period of time.
However, due to several ethical blockades, this field of research is quite stunted. While I understand the heavy moral weight of using embryos as tools when relating to religion and other personal views, I believe the most important moral question is as such: how is it morally correct to protect potential human lives when an obvious key to saving viable, “right now” people lies in their exploitation? Why are we so emotional over the idea of inhibiting possible human life when people are dying around us everyday from conceivably curable conditions?
My opinion on this topic is much the same as my stance of supporting the opportunity to choose abortion: it’s more important to focus and make decisions based on bettering the lives that exist now instead of the ones that could potentially exist later.
My personal understanding of what an embryo actually is contributes strongly to my sentiment in both cases. To me, an embryo is a non-explicit cluster of cells which does not in any way experience feeling, thought, or the desire to live. In essence, I see them as lacking the basic characteristics definitive of human beings.
In any case, I’ve found a really interesting paper pertaining to this topic which takes a seemingly unbiased stance on the issue and explores multiple opinions throughout it. However, I think it is subtly leaning towards “pro” research, so be wary of your own ideas when reading it.
It’s not too complicated or science-y. Click here if you feel like learning more about this issue.
Lindsay
