An embryo is actually a human; it should be valued as highly as a human life.

The reasoning can be summed up by the fact that, once an egg is fertilized, unless inhibited, it will develop into a fully-developed adult. This opinion is often related to religious doctrines which assert that conception marks the beginning of human life or the presence of a soul.

Viability is another standard under which embryos and fetuses have been regarded as human lives. In the United States, the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade concluded that viability determined the permissibility of abortions performed for reasons other than the protection of the woman's health, defining viability as the point at which a fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

The point of viability was 24 to 28 weeks when the case was decided and has since moved to about 22 weeks due to advancement in medical technology.

If further technological advances allow a sperm and egg to be combined and fully developed completely outside of the womb, an embryo will be viable as soon as it is conceived, and under the viability standard, life will begin at conception.

Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.

This argument is used by opponents of embryonic destruction as well as researchers specializing in adult stem cell research. It is often claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.

Furthermore, adult stem cell research may be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.

Here is the original post:
Arguments Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Stem ...