Embryonic stem cell research. Google this term and you will find that there are as many articles on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) as there are on the actual biomedical field of study. The moral claims for and against the use of embryos in scientific research often deal with “personhood”. Opponents of ESCR mistakenly equate ‘human life’ and ‘personhood’. I will dive into the semantics of these terms in the following paragraph. Opponents of ESCR also suggest that embryos are human beings, complete in every sense of the term, while proponents state embryos do not embody personhood and therefore are undeserving of the rights and protections granted to sentient human beings. I will build my argument in favor of embryonic stem
…show more content…
This claim, cited by George and Lee in their article “Acorns and Embryos”, incorrectly rewards intrinsic value to embryos. George and Lee base their arguments on what an embryo is and fail to look at the value of human beings in terms of who. What separates human beings from non-human animals is not our DNA, or what our genetic make-up is, it is who we are in terms of sentience and cognition. It is because of this distinction that embryos are not intrinsically valuable. My argument against the intrinsic value of embryos is that if you concede to the notion that what makes killing an embryo wrong is the fact that it has "human DNA" then you must concede that the only difference between humans and non-human animals is DNA as well. Imagine a scientist looking at a chicken’s DNA and then viewing the DNA of a human. Could the scientist rightly conclude that a human is more valuable than that of a chicken without any extrinsic factors? Certainly not. The “Continuity of Human Life” argument precipitates the moral argument against destroying potential human beings. Embryos used in ESCR do not have potential to become a human being. They are used with the intention of research and eventual destruction. The means for these embryos to …show more content…
This claim assumes that ‘life begins at conception’. One problem with the above claim is human growth is continuous and you cannot pin-point the exact moment a human being embodies personhood. Take for instance a teenager transitioning into adulthood. You cannot determine the exact moment the teen becomes an adult because human growth is not an instantaneous process just like personhood is not spontaneous process. Even death, the finale of human life, has no absolute timing [1]. Sentience, defined as self-awareness and the ability to perceive and feel, is the best marker for personhood [2]. Those who grant that the embryo is a human being cannot get around the role that sentience plays in the value of human life. We refrain from killing not because our subconscious says “Humans are intrinsically valuable”, but because we understand that humans have the ability to suffer. Most people value their own lives and are empathetic to those who suffer, because we put ourselves in other’s shoes. Empathy is something that most murderers lack, and scientists in embryonic stem cell research are not considered murderers in the same sense that Adolf Hitler is. Embryos are not sentient beings in any form. They lack cognition, self-awareness, and the ability to suffer; this is the
This claim, cited by George and Lee in their article “Acorns and Embryos”, incorrectly rewards intrinsic value to embryos. George and Lee base their arguments on what an embryo is and fail to look at the value of human beings in terms of who. What separates human beings from non-human animals is not our DNA, or what our genetic make-up is, it is who we are in terms of sentience and cognition. It is because of this distinction that embryos are not intrinsically valuable. My argument against the intrinsic value of embryos is that if you concede to the notion that what makes killing an embryo wrong is the fact that it has "human DNA" then you must concede that the only difference between humans and non-human animals is DNA as well. Imagine a scientist looking at a chicken’s DNA and then viewing the DNA of a human. Could the scientist rightly conclude that a human is more valuable than that of a chicken without any extrinsic factors? Certainly not. The “Continuity of Human Life” argument precipitates the moral argument against destroying potential human beings. Embryos used in ESCR do not have potential to become a human being. They are used with the intention of research and eventual destruction. The means for these embryos to …show more content…
This claim assumes that ‘life begins at conception’. One problem with the above claim is human growth is continuous and you cannot pin-point the exact moment a human being embodies personhood. Take for instance a teenager transitioning into adulthood. You cannot determine the exact moment the teen becomes an adult because human growth is not an instantaneous process just like personhood is not spontaneous process. Even death, the finale of human life, has no absolute timing [1]. Sentience, defined as self-awareness and the ability to perceive and feel, is the best marker for personhood [2]. Those who grant that the embryo is a human being cannot get around the role that sentience plays in the value of human life. We refrain from killing not because our subconscious says “Humans are intrinsically valuable”, but because we understand that humans have the ability to suffer. Most people value their own lives and are empathetic to those who suffer, because we put ourselves in other’s shoes. Empathy is something that most murderers lack, and scientists in embryonic stem cell research are not considered murderers in the same sense that Adolf Hitler is. Embryos are not sentient beings in any form. They lack cognition, self-awareness, and the ability to suffer; this is the