Embryonic stem cells provide huge potential for new regenerative therapies, however their use in research has for years been highly debated. These stem cells create a moral and ethical predicament, forcing people to choose between two major principles which are the responsibility to prevent or alleviate human suffering or the responsibility of respecting the importance of human life. This concept of utilizing human embryos falls under the category of, “just because we can, does it mean we should?”. Because of the unique nature of embryonic stem cell research there really is no middle ground. Both moral principles cannot be respected for the simple reason that obtaining embryonic stem cells require the embryo to be destroyed. In some eyes destroying a potential human life. But using these cells and further researching them could lead to discovering new cures and treatments that could save or alleviate suffering for so many people. So much of people’s opinions rely on how they view the human embryo, and whether it holds the status as an actual person.

Much of the confrontation with the issue is sourced from peoples viewpoint on the moral status of the embryo. I will enumerate some viewpoints and go through some common disputes for and against of each point while putting general emphasis on my own personal opinion. 

The first of these is the viewpoint that the embryo has total moral status from the point of fertilization onward. People who generally side with this viewpoint feel that development from fertilized egg to eventually a new born baby is a continuous process. The same way a baby is not yet an adult a fertilized egg is not yet a developed baby but should still been seen as a person. This idea of continuous development is definitely a valid point if one does not take into consideration the strong opposition to this argument. On top of the opposition to this one must take  into consideration the source of the stem cells being used, these embryo’s are not harvested from a pregnant woman. Most embryos are sourced from fertility treatments, the leftovers if you will 5. With this information taken into account, using these embryos is not preventing a life4. To develop into a child the embryo would have to be transferred into a woman’s uterus and even then the probability of it developing into a full term and successful birth is low with in vitro fertilization. With that being said something that has the potential to be a person should not be considered or treated as a person. This argument often arose in my daily life while forming my own opinion on the topic, I  once used the previous presidential election as an analogy to this idea of what is vs. what will be saying, “Compare this to the atrocity of the Presidential race, both Trump and Clinton had the potential to become the next President of the United State of America however that does not mean they had the rights, the power, or should be treated as the President.” I feel it is a very relatable comparison. Until inauguration the president elect is not capable of what they will be able to do or given the power to make decisions the president would. The same way an embryo is not capable of anything a baby is, it’s the precursor to a child, raw materials if you will. Just as a presidential candidate/president elect is the precursor to a president.   Another opposition to this viewpoint is that these early embryos do not posses the main characteristics that we associate with humanity. They do not have the emotional psychological or physical properties 2, therefore it should not hold the status as a human so it can be used to help benefit patients who actually are people. 

Before delving into a separate contrasting viewpoint I think it is very important to take a look at laws surrounding abortions. Abortion is another extremely controversial topic, this is because unlike using embryos many cases of abortion involve partially to almost fully developed fetuses. In the state I am from (New York) abortion is totally legal up until the twenty fourth week of pregnancy 3. To spare this from being a rather graphic report, at that point it is a fully developed child fetus not to the ideal extent of pregnancy but there are many cases of babies born prematurely at twentyfour weeks old surviving to maturity. To me this is indeed taking a life when it comes to that point. And that is legal, there is a world of difference between a lone embryo comprised of around ten cells and a new born baby comprised of around twentysix billion cells. Is that not devaluing the life of a human far more than using embryo’s to save lives. I have personally been to the bodies exhibit in New York City and they have a display of fetuses in every stage of development once they become easily visible to the eye. The fetus at the twenty fourth week is disturbingly close to the likeness of a newborn, it is only slightly smaller but it is fully developed physically. This is legal and is attacked by the same principals as using embryonic stem cells which have no humanistic shape to them, from a visual standpoint it would be impossible to argue they are the same. Although I do not agree with where the abortion line is made there must be some reasoning for it. This idea of a dividing line has to be established and if abortion at twenty four weeks is okay, the use of a few cells is exponentially less significant. 

The other extreme end of the viewpoints is that embryos have absolutely no moral status to them. Some arguments that people who support this claim make is that a fertilized egg is just part of someone's body until they have sufficiently developed to survive on their own. Destroying a blastocyst before it is implanted into a uterus does no harm to anyone, it has no desires, beliefs expectations or likewise it is not a person. No one frets about the millions of embryos expelled during the menstrual cycle but utilizing these embryos to save lives causes controversy. Not exactly the same scenario but again these are leftover embryos in most cases I see no argument against using them for good instead of wasting them.  And essentially the argumentation against this is that if we take embryonic stem cells form an early embryo we are playing the role of “God”. We are preventing it from developing in its natural way, preventing it from becoming what it is programmed to be which is a human life. They question what gives someone the right to deny the life of a human. But again you look at it from the other side, by not further researching it we are choosing not to potentially help millions of patients through advancement in this type of medicine. Utilizing cells to advance medicine is not playing God. We are a civilized race throughout history the primary goal is progressing the human race and improving the quality of life. Using these cells have the upside to cure diseases and restore the quality of life to millions of people now and in the future. 

I personally am of the view that the ethical theory of Utilitarianism best suits this moral dilemma, at least for my argumentative purposes. Utilitarianism is essentially a “doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number” 7. Since its main belief is that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility and utility although defined in an assortment of ways, is usually related to the well-being of sentient entities. The Oxford dictionary define sentient as “Able to perceive or feel things”.6 Under that sentiment it is ethical to use embryonic stem cells for research to better the greater good of sentient people. Embryonic stem cells posses no feelings, no qualities that would render them sentient so under this ideal there isn’t much of a debate. Which is why people’s viewpoint of whether an embryo has full moral status or not is so pivotal in one’s argumentation over the topic. I truly believe doing what’s better for the greater good will far surpass the possible degradation of the value of human life, especially when it’s being utilized to save real and fully developed lives.  

Some of the main criticisms of utilitarianism are that it is distasteful and that it is impractical 8. The distasteful argument revolves around the idea that it does not coincide with other people's way of thinking. And that is simply because they are incapable of looking at things from a societal benefit point of view. It requires people to be selfless. “The argument from distaste is often expressed as a suggestion that utilitarianism does not provide enough support for individuals' rights. But what is a right, and what is its justification? If the justification of a right depends on its tendency to promote happiness and prevent suffering, then it is entirely redundant since this is the sole purpose of utility. And if rights are not justified in these terms, how are they justified - what on earth are they actually good for? Of what use are they?”8 This excerpt perfectly applies to this topic. Let’s break it down, anti-embryonic research advocates believe it goes against the the embryos right to have a life. But if generated and selectively excluded to not proceeding to becoming implanted and growing into a developing fetus, no rights are being violated. These embryos path was not going through development. They were generated solely to provide utility. Whether that utility is providing happiness to a couple struggling to conceive or advancing research that will save lives and improve the wellbeing of others. One of the other main arguments is impracticality, and part of that is saying we do not know if something will be useful or not, and how will we know when to stop. And to that I say we research into things that provide utility for society until it is no longer useful. Simple as that we have this well of potential that should be utilized until that well runs dry.

Because of the nature of this assertion I really can not provide empirical support for what I am about to say however I feel it is a safe assumption to make. (Sorry for not lurking in a hospital and badgering distressed families). Take a die-hard prolifer and give them a choice between saving their loved one's life or denying treatment because it requires the use of embryonic stem cells and the choice becomes rather clear. They would save their loved one. It is easy to be against something when it does not directly play a role in your life. It is easy to take a side that at face value seems to be what is morally “right” until you delve into the possibilities as well as what the action is truly doing. Take into account that most embryonic stem cells used are leftover from eggs that were fertilized at in vitro fertilization clinic but never were chosen to be implanted in a woman's uterus. On top of that the stem cells are donated with informed consent from donors not just because they are laying around. With that being said I think people should realize if anything these possible “lives” are being put to better use than they ever would otherwise. They are not being left frozen in limbo until who knows when, they are not being discarded. They are either being put to use saving or improving the life/suffering of others, or being used to research ways to save and improve lives of others. It seems much of the criticism is unwarranted and equates sheerly from a lack of education on the topic. Which is often the case when it comes to controversial topics. Everyone has an opinion but so few are educated and can enumerate quality reasons why they are for or against said topic. A greater issue on it’s own when you ask someone to elaborate why they chose their particular side and they do not know.

Breaking this issue into marginal cost vs. marginal benefit, as long as there is progress which can be obtained through embryonic stem cell research the marginal benefit outweighs the cost. If you educate people and have them look at the information with an open mind they would understand it is giving more meaning to these cells then they ever would have otherwise. People need to be realistic when arguing for saving embryos from use in medical research. The potential is too great to ever retract all the research being done, I truly believe it will change the world of medicine, hopefully in our lifetime. Hopefully greatly expanding the lifetime of many people. And to appeal to those who think it’s against religion and that we’re playing God, if that were so God wouldn’t have made us as progressive or as curious as we are as a species. We’re always progressing. On a final note, It is not taking lives to save lives, it is taking what is there and putting its potential to use. 
