[luisdt]

I believe the government should not fund embryonic stem cell research. Many people on the other hand refute my opinion because they believe that embryonic stem cell research is extremely valuable to mankind. They are in favor of this study because researchers may find potential cures for diseases and disabilities, a way to have transplants without sacrifice of another person losing an organ, and prevent and treat abnormal human development. Although they do present valuable arguments they are wrong because it is immoral to destroy human life in order to save or reduce suffering in existing human life, no cure has been produced by embryonic stem cell research, there are alternatives such as adult stem cell research or cord blood stem cell research, the rise in illegal sale of the embryos or fetus in the “organic black market”, there are scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research, and private companies may put profit ahead of principle.
The question of when human life begins has been pondered throughout history, and we still have no clear answer for it. It is often argued that embryos are too small to be human and can therefore be used as research material. There is great debate among scientists and pro-lifers over whether a human embryo should be considered human life or not. Scientists argue that embryos lack humanity because they cannot survive outside of the womb. Pro-lifers believe that human life starts at conception. I agree with the pro-lifers point of view that human life starts at conception. Therefore I believe it is unethical to destroy a human embryo. The destruction of innocent human life can never be justified, even if the aim is to save another human life.
The research on embryonic stem cell has been going on for years and the possibilities for cures is no where to be seen. Although media hype sometimes fed by scientists often hint that cures for dread diseases are only five to ten years away, most scientists agree that this is very doubtful. Most scientists admit that all the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells are still a long way off in the future. In fact, because possible cures are so distant, some supporters of the use of embryonic stem cells have begun to shift their arguments. Many scientists have become exceedingly discouraged because after years of studies embryonic stem cell research has not helped a single patient in the entire world. It used to be thought that embryonic stem cells had more clinical potential than other stem cells because they are easier to identify, isolate and harvest, easier to obtain, they grow more quickly and easily in a laboratory setting, and are more “plastic”. The key argument for using stem cells from embryos is that they are more “plastic” which means, they are easier to change into other types of cells. Yet all these arguments have proved false.
That is why I believe scientists should concentrate more on other alternatives of stem cell studies. These alternatives include adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research. It is important to stress that the only stem cells that have helped patients so far are adult stem cells. The challenge of identifying and isolating adult stem cells is being overcome. In fact, adult stem cells have been used for about 30 years in procedures like bone marrow transplants. In the last few years, scientists have also discovered that adult stem cells exist in many parts of our own body such as the brain, bone marrow, skin, fat and many other locations. Scientists have also had promising results from cord blood stem cell research. Cord blood is easily defined as blood retrieved from the umbilical cord after the birth of the child. The collection process is painless for both the mother and the newborn child. The cord blood contains stem cells which are considered the building blocks of blood and immune systems in the body. Beginning in the late 1980s, cord blood stem cells have been used to treat a number of blood and immune-system related genetic diseases, cancers, and disorders.
Another reason scientists should seek other alternatives to embryonic stem cell is the fact that there have been various flaws with this type of research. The greatest concern among scientists is the fact that stem cells from embryos have a tendency to create tumors. The problem of rejection also exists. Rejection will occur if there is not a close genetic match between the embryonic stem cells and the patient receiving the stem cell implants.
As with many scientific advances private companies play a roll in the research of embryonic stem cells. Therefore the possibility of profit over principle always exists. Once large amounts of money begin to play a role people begin to get greedy and begin to put their moral values behind them. This can cause an increase in the illegal sale of embryos in the “organic black market”. This is especially true in foreign countries where young women are taken captive and are used for their embryos. Their embryos are removed and frozen so that later they can be sold at high prices to people who study them. It is a cruel reality that most people don’t think of.
In conclusion I believe the government should not fund embryonic stem cell research for the reasons mentioned. Although it has many possible positives it has many more negatives. Besides studies have shown that other types of stem cells have the same results, if not better.