Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cells are thought by most scientists and researchers to hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders and much more.

Scientists see almost infinite value in the use of embryonic stem cell research to understand human development and the growth and treatment of dieases.

Actual cures are many years away, though, since research has not progressed to the point where even one cure has yet been generated by embryonic stem cell research.

Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that eventually may be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics.

Many pro-lifers believe that the proper moral and religious course of action is to save existing life through embryonic stem cell therapy.

Some staunch pro-lifers and most pro-life organizations regard the destruction of the blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg, to be the murder of human life. They believe that life begins at conception, and that destruction of this pre-born life is morally unacceptable.

They believe that it is immoral to destroy a few-days-old human embryo, even to save or reduce suffering in existing human life.

Many also believe that insufficient attention been given to explore the potential of adult stem cells, which have already been used to successfully cure many diseases. They also argue that too little attention has been paid to the potential of umbilical cord blood for stem cell research. They also point out that no cures have yet been produced by embryonic stem cell therapy.

At every step of the embryonic stem cell therapy process, decisions are made by scientists, researchers, medical professionals and women who donate eggs...decisions that are fraught with serious ethical and moral implications. Those against embryonic stem cell research argue that funding should be used to greatly expand adult stem research, to circumvent the many moral issues involving the use of human embryos.

President Bush said in mid-May 2005, "I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but I've made it very clear to Congress that the use of federal taxpayer money to promote science that destroys life in order to save life, I am against this."

Bush never says that he is against embryonic stem cell research, only against the use of federal funds to fund such research.

As a result, a handful of states, most notably California, are rushing ahead to fill the void by funding embryonic stem cell research through major universities.

All polls show that a large majority of Americans favor using their federal tax funds to support expansion of embryonic stem cell research.

The US has appropriated more $400 billion to date on the disastrous War in Iraq debacle. If just 1% of that amount was set aside for US embryonic stem cell research, most scientists and medical researachers believe that many millions of lives can be restored and saved.

And that these precious solutions would then not be controlled by greedy pharmaceutical and biomedical corporations.

Dr. James Dobson sums up the view of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research by declaring "The embryo is embryonic human life and we would not favor anything that kills human life."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid summed up supporting views when he stated, "Embryonic stem cell research provides us the hope of new cures and therapies, and we should embrace this research opportunity and not allow radical ideology to stand in the way. President Bush has made the wrong choice, putting politics ahead of of safe, responsible science."