Harman And Embryo

There are two possible considerations that are argued. The first being that at the stage of conception, human embryos and fetuses have equal rights to human beings. In Elizabeth Harman’s article, Judith Jarvis Thompson argues that “a fetus has a full moral status of a person [and] abortion is nevertheless permissible” (Harman). The second argument is that human embryos have some legal rights in comparison to humans. Elizabeth Harman argues the permissibility of an early embryo’s moral status. She claims that if the early embryo has any moral status at all, then creating and “destroying them to make stem cells” cannot be allowed. (Harman). In other words, it is simply immoral to “sacrifice the life of one human to save another without their …show more content…
However, some doctors stand on the side that it is morally wrong to derive stem cells from embryos in hopes of a cure. Nothing can be guaranteed from stem cell research. Arthur Caplan is the director of the Bioethics Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Caplan, PhD, explained in M.J. Friedrich’s article how embryonic stem cells are not “morally equivalent to embryos or human beings” (Friedrich). He does believe a level of “moral ground” should still be shown to people in favor of stem cell research (Friedrich). But he explains a particular way to show “respect for procreation,” and that is by adding “status to procreation and the creation of embryos... [and] discouraging their creation unless [one] is trying to turn them into a person” (Friedrich). Caplan made an expert opinion when he distinguished the differences between embryos sitting in in-vitro fertilization clinics and the embryos that need to be created for the sole purpose of research. He labeled the embryos sitting in the in-vitro fertilization clinics as "prisoners of the utility industry," because they do not have the same “moral standing” as embryos created for purposes pertaining to research. In his opinion, "no one will claim them [because] they are unwanted …show more content…
Adult stem cell research is the closest alternative to embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells are seen as less “available” and less “versatile” than embryonic stem cells, but recent studies have proven their success (“Embryonic Stem Cell Research”). Researchers from America and Brazil extracted stem cells from bone marrow in twenty-three patients with type-1 diabetes. They were successfully able to help twenty of those patients become “insulin-free for a period of time” (“Embryonic Stem Cell Research”). Embryonic stem cells are much more experimental to use on patients because they run the risk of the patient’s immune system rejecting them. Adult stem cells do not run this risk because they are “taken from a person’s own body” (“Embryonic Stem Cell Research”). There have been several medical successes regarding adult stem cells. For example, “on May 21, 2015, FOX News reported that 29 stroke patients who received their own bone marrow stem cells were noted to recover motor skills and speech” (“Embryonic Stem Cell Research”). Another alternative to human embryonic stem cell research is using stem cells found in the blood of the umbilical cord. There are several banks across the United States that people are able to donate cord blood to, post birth; however, researchers still argue that embryonic stem cells are the best stem cells to use because they are capable of turning “into any cell in the human body,”