Morality Vs. Evolution On The Improvement Of Life

1069 Words 5 Pages
Morality Vs. Evolution on the Improvement of Life: Embryonic Stem Cell Research
In Beau Watts' essay "Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Moral Evil or Obligation" (December 2011), the author claims that embryonic stem cells are the answer for humanity to have an overall better life. Watts, an emergency room physician in Kansas City, Missouri explains the complex properties of embryonic stems cells while also discussing the properties of other proponents for altering genes, such as embryonic germ cells, and adult stem cells. He highlights how the other cells are not as promising to use for the research, even though people argue that experiments on embryonic cells are morally unacceptable. The author mentions that people are against embryonic stem
…show more content…
Watts highlights embryonic stem cells are the best for curing diseases due to the cell's qualities of being a pluripotent cell (Watts, 459). The author goes into detail about the cells in order for the reader to grasp the importance of the cell's scientific innovation. Watts' informative persuasive tone gives the essay the format of an advertisement for people that oppose the embryonic stem cell research. He uses credible sources to counter argue the opposing party by enhancing that the practice might be wrong, however Britain, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority throws the cells away. It would be more wrong and more logical to use the cells for research instead of discarding the cells (Watts, 459). Watts uses many examples to encourage the reader to support his argument by emphasizing how great embryonic stem cells are, then states that the only side effect of that research is that it is expensive. The author does not go into depth of the other cells, adult stem cells and embryonic germ cells, which leaves the readers without the ability to decide for themselves which cell is beneficial or which is humanly …show more content…
He warrants that since the embryo has not been implanted in the uterus, it is not a human being yet, therefore he justifies that there is nothing wrong with practicing on a cell that is not a human yet. He strongly backs up his warrant by using the morning after pill as an example of something that people use that is justifiable for treating a cell that is not a human yet either. The author asserts the moral views of the people that do not agree with the research, various times throughout his essay he uses morality and human rights to argue against the practice. Watts utilizes credible sources such as The National Bioethics Advisory Committee, to state their opinions on the rights of embryonic stem cells. They believe that the "blastocyst must be treated with respect appropriate to early human embryonic tissue, but is justifiable if it's used in research that aims to save or heal human life" (Watts, 460). The author is not biased in mentioning the religions' opinions on the subject, he generalizes that many religious traditions do not give protection to the embryo until later in the process. He gives the audience a broader overview of the subject on both the scientific and religious stand on embryonic stem

Related Documents