The Arguement Against Stem Cell Research

Generally the people who are against stem cell research have a moral issue with it. Many believe that the use of embryonic stem cells, taken from aborted embryos is unethical, because they view the embryos just as they’d view fully developed human corpses. An embryo is actually a human; it should be valued as highly as a human life. Therefore, according to their beliefs, research using stem cells extracted from embryos left after abortions or other procedures is on par with research using dead bodies, when the people have not consented to the research. The main argument they have on their side is that stem cells can be taken from other places, including adults, without ‘hurting’ anyone or anything. The reasoning can be summed up by the fact that, once an egg is fertilized, unless inhibited, it will develop into a fully-developed adult. This opinion is often related to religious doctrines which assert that conception marks the beginning of human life or the presence of a soul. Based upon this reasoning, the subsequent argument against embryonic stem cell research is that human life is inherently valuable and should not be voluntarily destroyed. It has been argued that "the line at which an embryo becomes a human life remains as arbitrary as ever". Viability is another standard under which embryos and fetuses have been regarded as human lives. In the United States, the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade concluded that viability determined the permissibility of abortions performed for reasons other than the protection of the woman's health, defining viability as the point at which a fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." The point of viability was 24 to 28 weeks when the case was decided and has since moved to about 22 weeks due to advancement in medical technology.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/