Sandel's Argument Concerning Stem Cell Research
(a) Explain the different positions on research on embryos taken by Sandel on the one hand and by George and Lee on the other hand.
Sandal is a formidable opponent of genetic enhancing, but this idea is often tied to research and is commonly done on embryos. His entire argument is based one seeking moral grounds for doing research on embryos, which ultimately destroys them. In his argument sandal uses the morality of the embryo to be tested on the support his claim that research should not be done on embryos. When discussing research on embryos, he states “ one must begin by grasping the full force of the claim that the embryo is morally equivalent to a person, a fully developed human being” (Sandel, p. 113). He brings up the notion that some parents who have leftover embryos after having IVF are fine with destroying the embryos in the name of research. However, he uses the right-to-life argument to convey how it would be wrong to research on leftover IVF embryos considering there are people who would adopt them. Ultimately Sandel believes that “embryos are not inviolable, but neither are they objects at our disposal.”(Sandel,p 125) However, he still supports research on embryos because they are fundamentally different than human beings. …show more content…
In fact, they directly attack Sandel’s assertion of embryos and human beings being different. They especially disagree on his uses of analogies to prove his point. His attempt at comparing humans and embryos to oak trees and oaks samplings is flawed in their in opinion. You cannot compare the two because they do not carry the same value in our society. They believe that the only difference between humans and embryos is size and degree of development. Their conclusion came to support of biomedical research just as long as it is not a product of purposeful killing of
Sandal is a formidable opponent of genetic enhancing, but this idea is often tied to research and is commonly done on embryos. His entire argument is based one seeking moral grounds for doing research on embryos, which ultimately destroys them. In his argument sandal uses the morality of the embryo to be tested on the support his claim that research should not be done on embryos. When discussing research on embryos, he states “ one must begin by grasping the full force of the claim that the embryo is morally equivalent to a person, a fully developed human being” (Sandel, p. 113). He brings up the notion that some parents who have leftover embryos after having IVF are fine with destroying the embryos in the name of research. However, he uses the right-to-life argument to convey how it would be wrong to research on leftover IVF embryos considering there are people who would adopt them. Ultimately Sandel believes that “embryos are not inviolable, but neither are they objects at our disposal.”(Sandel,p 125) However, he still supports research on embryos because they are fundamentally different than human beings. …show more content…
In fact, they directly attack Sandel’s assertion of embryos and human beings being different. They especially disagree on his uses of analogies to prove his point. His attempt at comparing humans and embryos to oak trees and oaks samplings is flawed in their in opinion. You cannot compare the two because they do not carry the same value in our society. They believe that the only difference between humans and embryos is size and degree of development. Their conclusion came to support of biomedical research just as long as it is not a product of purposeful killing of