Ethics vs. Science
View Full Essay
The debate over the idea of stem cell research derived from human embryos is widespread and equally controversial. It is an ongoing struggle between science and ethics. Science arguing that it has the potential to treat presently incurable diseases, and ethics arguing against it with the defense of “killing a human life.”
Under most ethical schemes, helping a fellow human is considered being ethically necessary, and helping the sick or less fortunate is a classic example of what it means to help others. In order to aid a massive amount of people, wouldn’t stem cell research make that big difference? Instead of reaching out to perhaps the people you encounter everyday, why not change the world for the better?
Yet, morally, no matter how much one desires to assist another in need, some ways of accomplishing that task is occasionally intricate. This is part of the argument of the “ethical abiding people” who believe that stem cell research, which destroys human embryos, despite its stage of development, is always morally incorrect. Most of the public, however, disagree. After all, what is so humanly about a frozen fertilized embryo? Many scientists believe that human life only begins when brainwaves and heartbeats develop, which is during the 9th week of pregnancy, so embryos are not humans. Human life for us usually is considered to start in the mother and not in a Petri dish.
Another point to be made is that most embryo sources of stem cells have been the result of vitro fertilization, which at some occasion is always destroyed. These cells, while thrown away as garbage, could benefit numerous people around the world. Using embryonic stem cells in order to save the lives of many and heal diseases is no less morally troubling than using the organs from accident victims as transplants. Morality does permit stem cell research; the individuals who believe in a different, narrow-minded type of morality do not.
Religious and moral values can be as admirable as...