The next ethical and moral issue that follows the deciphering if embryos are human lives or just cells is whether embryonic stem cell research should be used or should only adult stem cell research by permitted. One side of the argument is that embryonic stem cells are the only stem cells that have the potential to develop into any tissue type in the body. Therefore, theoretically any body part can be grown for medical purposes. It is said that unused embryos would eventually be discarded at some point anyway, so they should be used to help save existing human lives. Those in support of adult stem research only argue that embryos are the beginning stages of life and should be respected and receive the right of a human being. Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research is still very immature in progress and has not been able to be clinically tested. More attention needs to be spent on adult stem cell research; the only type, which includes using aborted fetuses, that does not require the halting the potential of a fully developed life. Adult stem cells are available from many sources such as bone marrow, human fat cells, placenta, and blood from umbilical cords[1]. There are limitations to the types of tissues they are able to form, unlike embryonic stem cells, but do not cost potential lives. The potential success for adult stem research is a lot better than embryonic stem cell research at this time because it has been successfully used to provide therapy for humans. Adult stem cells allow for patients to see their own stem cells for therapy-as not to be mistaken by the system as a foreign invader; decreasing the risk for body rejection. An even more important argument for adult stem cell research is that it does not challenge many of the moral and ethical debates that embryonic stem cell research does[2].

    For those who argue that embryos are humans, who should be protected from being destroyed for research, would follow the words of John F. Wagner Jr., “A desired increase in medical knowledge can never justify means that are immoral in themselves”[3]. Some religions support this idea, including many Catholic sectors, though some Catholics do not agree with what the church has implemented as the standard belief. A practicing Roman Catholic, Edmund D. Pellegrino, from Georgetown University argues that from Roman Catholic Church teaching, the church is against embryonic stem cell research. The church views life from the one-cell stage to death. Human life must be protected and embryos should not be used as a means [killed for research][4]. But this argument is only one view. Other denominations of Christianity and other religions like Judaism belief that life begins at different stages, which is why some religions are not against abortion.   

 Those who argue embryonic stem cell research is viable take the developmental perspective of human life. This view shelters the belief that an embryo gradually develops into a full human being and therefore is not entitled to all the moral protections that we have[5]. There are some who argue, for example Jewish sectors[6], that embryo’s do represent human lives, but these lives may be taken to save and preserve existing and future lives[7].

            Together we need to debate these views and come to a consensus on these ethical issues as well as many other ethical and moral issues that taunt the stem cell controversy. Ballots are put up during election time to vote on the stem cell issues and the outcomes from the votes will affect us. The outcomes will affect if a woman’s frozen embryos will be used in experiments she has no control over or the protection of embryos to be saved for reproductive reasons only. If we do not establish what is moral and ethical and work to laws in place that will protect these views in light of embryonic research, there are powers that will do it for us.

Close this window to return to the home page.