Stem cells
Embryonic stem cell research is an especially hot topic for those affected with chronic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis. These are my thoughts on the subject.
The issue of embryonic stem cell research has two very different perspectives. On one side, there are those opposing stem cell research because they feel it is unethical to intentionally destroy an ebmryo, regardless of the benefit that could be gained. On the other side, there are those supporting stem cell research because they claim it will save millions of lives. I see both sides as being a bit disingenuous.
Certainly, to create human life with the intention of destroying it (we do it all the time with animals) in order to further science is a frightening thought. Much of the stem cell argument seems based on the definition of when life is created. Those against stem cell research often say life is created at fertilization. There are various times in which those supporting stem cell research say that life begins. Some say it starts when the baby enters the third trimester of the pregnancy. Others say it starts when the baby emerges from the womb. From a biological perspective, I think life does start at fertilization. To try to point to an exact time after that in which life all of a sudden exists is impossible. However, to suggest that an embryo is equal to a human is absurd. There is no nervous system so no pain is felt. The embryo has the potential of growing into a human; a human being has actually done it.
The supporters of stem cell research often claim that millions of lives will benefit from the research. None of this is proven. While it is true that stem cell research is promising, it has not been proven that this technology will save millions. It is irresponsible to try to sell stem cell research as such.
That said, there exists a policy in the Unites States whereby embryos are created to assist with reproduction. After some amount of time, the leftover embryos are either frozen indefinitely or destroyed. If our society truly recognized these leftover embryos as lives, we would have a funeral for each one of them. The fact is that they will be destroyed. This begs the question, "Why not perform the research if they will be destroyed anyway?" I certainly don't have an answer to that.
I hear the argument that adult stem cells could be an alternative to embryonic stem cell research, so there's no reason to destroy embryos. The point is that no one knows yet. And, until science learns more, we should pursue both technologies.
From a practical perspective, both technologies will be pursued. Whether or not the U.S. federal government funds stem cell research is not going to decide whether it will continue. Individual states, private companies and other countries are currently funding embryonic stem cell research. But, U.S. federal funding would allow us to find out sooner if this is a technology that could save millions of lives.