Breaking it Down

After thinking long and hard about my issue, I have concluded that its ethos can be summed up in these questions: At what point does human life begin and are the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research outweigh the risks and sacrifices involved?

Major players:
1. Those who are against embryonic stem cell research
~Those who oppose it for moral reasons
*Life begins at conception and all life is sacred.
*harvesting stem cells requires the destruction of the embryo, which is a human being (by way of the above reasoning) and harvesting the cells is the same as murder.
~Those who oppose it for medical reasons
*Embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce promising results for human treatments
*If stored for too long, embryonic stem cells develop genetic mutations that can cause cancer.

2. Those who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research
~those who believe that the potential medical benefits and cures derived from embryonic stem cells outweigh the sacrifices that have to be made.
~Embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to continue, but under government supervision.
~Embryos aren't considered human so it doesn't matter if they are destroyed.

Backgrounds:
Group 1 is split along religious and medical lines. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) for moral reasons believe that life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. They view the destruction of a fertilized embryo for the purpose of harvesting its stem cells as murder. Members of this faction also cite religion as the base of their argument: God created all life and all life is sacred. Members of this side also oppose ECSR for medical reasons. Despite years of research, ESCR has yet to produce effective treatments suitable for use on humans. As mentioned above, ESC can develop carcinogenic mutations if they go unused for too long. These individuals promote further funding of adult stem cell research (ASCR), which are already used in treatments today, to find cures.

Members of group 2 are in favor of continued ESCR, but their reasons differ. Some may promote ESCR because of its potential new treatments for diseases and that the costs are justified. Others may feel justified because they do not believe an embryo to be a human being and its destruction is not a sin. There are also those who support it but feel that the government should supervise the research to ensure public safety.

Social Climate:
This issue arises in a world of infirmity in which some diseases are incurable with the medicine at our disposal. It also arises in an age when people are questioning what it means to be a human and when life really begins. Scientists searching for cures must confront these questions as they delve into new possibilities for treatments and cures. The issue of ESCR partially goes along with the issue of abortion in asking the question of when human life really begins. Does it begin at conception, as many conservative and religious groups believe, or after birth?