Pros And Cons Of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy

THE SO CALLED ELIXIR OF LIFE
February 20, 2014
The so called elixir of life
Introduction
In the ancient story of the Tower of Babel, it was evident that people during those times desired to be like God by stocking up bricks that they thought could lead to heaven. Their actions basically showed their desire for power, fame, and most of all immortality, but thinking that they could reach God was a big mistake because God in all His power outwitted them by confusing their languages which lead them to end their foolish behaviours. Similarly, some people today would give anything just to taste youth and feel alive again and with the new innovations offered today some think that the impossible is slowly becoming possible. Human
That is why people have become inclined to seek various kinds of options offered by the field of medicine today. Supporters of human embryonic stem cell therapy emphasize that because we are now living in a modern world where there are new technologies and medicines to be offered we might as well take these oppurtunities such as the stem cell therapy. Their argument is that because Human embryonic stem cell therapy has good effects on the body because of how it renews deteriorating organs and tissues; it should be utilized (Smith & Daniel, 2008). While human embryonic stem cell therapy can be praised for its lessening the effects of aging, it does not have an overall good consequence when life must always be destroyed. One issue on the use of this therapy is the moral status of human embryos at stake. The moral status of a Human embryo should be equated with a fetus’, child’s, and adult’s status because the fact that a human embryo resulted from human gametes simply means that it is a developing human being (Hug, K., 2006). There is no sense in trying to prolong life when innocent lives are sacrificed as well. The therapy is truly inhumane because of how it disrespects the life of a growing child by killing it just to look and feel a little younger. Aging cannot be escaped because this is how we are designed that is why the
First of all, it was pointed out that the therapy has health risks on the patients. It was discovered that some patients were suffering from side effects and have formed tumours in their bodies because of the rejection of incompatible stem cells to their bodies. Why resort to such therapy that does not only destroy other lives but could also destroy yours? Secondly, it was pointed out that there are strong moral issues against the human embryo. We defined human embryo to be a developing human, so destroying one would mean killing your own kind. There is nothing good about prolonging life when other thousands of ones are destroyed as well. Thirdly, we provided other types of alternatives that are less controversial and are not unethical. These therapies include the adult stem cell, umbilical cord stem cell, and induced pluripotent stem cell. Unlike the human embryonic stem cell therapy, these alternatives do not need to destroy lives. That is why researchers should focus more on developing these therapies for the benefit of the people instead. Lastly, we pointed out a counterargument which is that the therapy may reverse the effect of aging but we also rebutted it in the end by pointing out that there is no over all good consequence in destroying lives. The point we provided is obviously stronger due to the fact that moral