Embryonic Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay

Embryonic stem cell research is a highly debated and sensitive topic.  Such good can come from researching this technology because many people would benefit from it.  In the following paragraphs, I will explain what embryonic stem cells are and why the United States should be utilizing this medical advancement.  Further, I will point out the flaws in the arguments of those who are opposed to the use of these stem cells.  The United States will soon fall behind other countries who will be using this advancement if we cannot come to a logical conclusion on this vital issue.

            In the human body, there are more than 220 different cell types.    All of those cell types are derived from a cluster of cells known as embryonic stem cells.  These unique cells come from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst which is a young embryo approximately four to five days old.  What makes these cells so very unique is that they are pluripotent, which means that they can be characterized to differentiate into any of the three germ layers which exist in the human body: endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm.   The endoderm is comprised of the stomach, intestines, and the lungs.  The mesoderm is mainly the muscle, blood, and bone.  This leaves the ectoderm with your skin and nervous system.  These cells have the ability to repair almost any part of the human body, and that is what makes embryonic stem cells so special. Another aspect of these cells is that they have the ability, under the right circumstances, to replicate themselves indefinitely.  Since they have the ability to produce unlimited numbers of themselves and can be characterized to become any of the 220 cell types, they can be used in medicine for regenerative therapy and medical research. (Embryonic Stem Cell)

            Regenerative therapy means exactly what it implies.  Tissue which is lost or damaged due to disease or injury can be subsequently repaired or replaced by new tissue grown from administered embryonic stem cells.  Once the stem cells are administered into the patient's body, the cells move to the damaged area, engraft and multiply, replace damaged cells, and can restore the bodily functions of that area.  Some ailments which can possibly be treated with the use of embryonic stem cells are various cancers, genetic diseases, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and blindness.  There are many other conditions which could be dealt with using this incredible technology. (Treatment)

            So if major disabilities like the ones listed can be partially or fully treated, why don't we utilize them?  What is the ethical issue regarding the harvesting and use of these stem cells?  The main controversial issue of this type of research is the status of the human embryo.  When the inner cell mass of the embryo is taken, the embryo dies.  The reason for this is because the inner cell mass is what forms the three germ layers of the human body, so without it the embryo will no longer develop.  People who are against the harvesting, research, and use of these special cells are known to be "pro-life."  They are generally religious people who believe that the four-day-old embryo has a soul and is plainly murdered when harvested.  The pro-lifers believe that the research of these stem cells "instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life."  They make the  argument that the embryo is a potential human being and see human life as starting the instant an egg becomes fertilized.  This is the first flaw in their argument.  Scientifically, an embryo is not human until it starts to perform human functions.  At the time of harvest, it is only a cluster of cells no different than any of the other cells in the human body.  While they are correct that the embryo is a potential human, the embryo is not yet human by any scientific standards. (Stem Cell Controversy) 

            A popular philosopher by the name of Sam Harris makes a compelling argument for embryonic stem cell research in his article titled "The Case Against Faith."  In this writing, he mentions how President Bush used his first veto to cut off federal funding to embryonic stem cell research.  President Bush believes that human life begins at the moment of conception.  Harris states "[Bush] believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion."  He goes on to make the comparison that when the embryo is harvested it is a collection of a mere 150 cells, while there are more than 100,000 cells which exist in the brain of a fly. (Harris)

            During a speech given at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Sam Harris further criticizes the pro-life argument by addressing the issue of the embryo being a potential human.  He states, "Every cell in your body given the right manipulations, every cell with a nucleus is now a potential human being.  Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings."  And what about the argument of each embryo having a soul?  What would happen to the soul when the embryo splits, resulting in identical twins?  Think about it.  Does this mean that one soul can split into two souls?  Couldn't the embryos fuse back together to form a chimera?  What then happens to the other soul?  Harris states that this "arithmetic of souls" doesn't make any sense, and that these illogical arguments are prolonging the misery of people who suffer from debilitating and degenerative diseases.  Harris further explains that "our moral intuitions have been obscured by religious meta-physics. This is a kind of blindness that is very well subscribed in our society...and it goes by the name of religious faith." (Sam Harris - Stem Cells and Morality)

            It is clear that nearly every person who is against embryonic stem cell research is a religious person who is simply abiding by the stipulations of their faith.  They regurgitate the same few illogical arguments that coincide with their beliefs and are blinded by their religion.  How could the needs of a few cells from an undeveloped embryo outweigh those of a living, breathing human being who has no choice but to live a substandard life?  How can a person who has any type of moral value or sense of human wellbeing come to this kind of conclusion?  You have to ask yourself, which is more immoral---destroying an embryo that has not even started to carry out human functions, or letting millions of human beings continue to suffer as a result of religious incompetence?  The United States is falling behind the rest of the world in the medical field because other countries are able to see past the religious dogmatism and recognize the importance of this medical miracle.  Eventually we will just travel to other countries to have major procedures done that involve the use of these stem cells.  Why would we seek outdated treatment here in the US when we can have more promising, advanced medical procedures done in foreign countries? 

            It all comes down to federal funding of the research.  Without federal funding, it becomes very hard for medical facilities to continue studying embryonic stem cells.  Almost all of the men and women who we elected to represent us in office are God-fearing people, but not all of them are against the research.   The politicians who do not support the research are generally conservative, where as the ones who are in support of it are mostly liberal.  For example, President Bush cut off the federal funding for stem cell research, but President Obama resumed the funding shortly after taking office.  Although, in late August of 2009 a federal judge declared that embryonic stem cell research was once again off limits for federal funding.  The reason for this was because Obama's action violated the previous 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment which disallows funding for any procedure in which embryos are "created, destroyed, or discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." In 1999, Harriet Rabb, counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services, determined that human embryonic stem cells that are derived from embryos are not the same as embryos and are therefore immune to the federal funding cuts.   A federal court said that deciding question was whether or not an embryo was destroyed as a result of the procedure. (Park)

            This country was founded with a very important ideology: the separation of church and state.  The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This simply means that religion and religious values need to remain separate from politics and government.  Embryonic stem cell research is a prime example of why the founding fathers incorporated this concept into the Constitution.  If our politicians honored the Constitution and came to the logical agreement to fund this research, many people in the US can be treated.  For this hot issue, the pros absolutely out-weigh the cons and anyone who cannot see that is blind to the scientific facts.  The US is falling behind the rest of the world and it is quite a shame because there is so much potential in this field of medicine.