There may not be a greater debate in the medical community right now than that of embryonic stem cell research. Initially banned by the Federal government, these stem cells often originate from human embryos that were created for couples with reproductive issues and would be discarded. These stem cells are thought to be the key that will unlock the cure to many diseases, from Alzheimers to rare immune and even genetic disorders. On the other side of the issue, some see the destruction of an embryo as the murder of an unborn child.

The primary benefit of this research is the enormous amount of potential that it holds. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to create new organs, tissues, and systems within the human body. With a little guidance from scientists, these stem cells have shown that they can become new organs, new blood vessels, and even new ligaments for those with ACL tears. By culturing stem cells and them implanting them, recovery times could be halved for many serious injuries, illnesses, and diseases.

Because nearly one-third of the population could benefit from treatments and therapies that could originate from embryonic stem cell research, many scientists believe that this field could alleviate as much human suffering as the development of antibiotics was able to do. Because funding was restricted on embryonic stem cell lines for several years, however, the chances of any therapies being viable in the near future are slim.

The primary argument against this research is a moral one. Some people see the creation of an embryo as the creation of life, so to terminate that life would equate to murder. This primarily originates from a point of view where life as we define it begins at conception, which would mean that any medical advancement from this research would be at best unethical.

Those against this research argue that since the creation of this research field in the early 1980s, there have been no advancements in it whatsoever. Because of this lack of advancement, it could mean decades of additional research, thousands of embryos destroyed to further that research, and that is morally unacceptable for some.

The debate about embryonic stem cell research isnt in the potential benefits that this field of study could produce. It is in the ethics and morality of how embryonic stem cells are created. There often is no in-between view in this area: you either define life at some part of the physical development of the human body during the pregnancy or you define it at conception. This view then tends to lead each person to one side of this debate. Where do you stand?

View original post here:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Pros and Cons | HRF