Some of the bad arguments I have heard from those who support research using embryonic stem cells include the following:
These are bad reasons because appealing to healing is not enough. The healing knowledge must come from morally defensible research. From 1932-1972, almost 400 poor black men in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study were neither informed of their infection nor treated with penicillin—all for the purpose of gaining medical knowledge. This medical scandal produced institutional review boards whose purpose was to gain informed consent and assure the ethical standards of medical research in America. The relevance of Tuskegee to the stem-cell debate is that moral consequences cannot come from immoral research.
Those clumps of pluripotent human stem cells in a dish may be morally significant clumps of cells, and simply appealing to potential medical benefits is not a sufficient reason to justify their destruction. An additional argument must be made—and that argument is that a human embryo in a dish is not yet a bearer of moral rights. That is the proper place for the debate to be joined with those who oppose embryonic stem-cell research. They argue that once a human cell possesses a unique DNA code, it is a bearer of basic human rights, chief among which is the right not to be killed. Their argument may not be valid, but it cannot be ignored. Also, trying to diminish this rational moral argument (which of course may be true or false) by calling its supporters ignorant religious fanatics who oppose the advance of medical science is not only a bad argument, it is an act of unwarranted antireligious prejudice.
I have also heard bad arguments from those who oppose medical research using embryonic stem cells:
These are bad reasons because if embryonic stem cells are indeed bearers of human rights, then killing them is morally wrong, whether it is funded by the government or by private sources. Many who oppose embryonic stem-cell research are also pro life, and most would not make the argument that abortions are morally acceptable just so long as they receive no public funding. However, this is precisely the argument they make regarding embryonic stem-cell research. If this research is immoral because the human embryo is morally significant, then those who oppose it ought to work to make this research both unfunded and illegal. Their positions on abortion and stem-cell research are morally inconsistent.
As to the effectiveness of research using adult stem cells or cells from birth-cord blood or amniotic fluid, this is also a morally irrelevant argument. It confuses a scientific question with a moral question. If adult stem cells do not yield fruitful results, what then? Is it then morally permissible to go back to research on embryonic stem cells? This is called the naturalistic fallacy in ethics. It confuses the “is” of science with the “ought” of ethics. They are just two different categories. The morality of embryonic stem-cell research stands or falls in complete independence from what we do or do not learn from work with adult stem cells.
The only reason I have ever heard which, if true, clearly and convincingly supports embryonic stem- cell research is this one:
There are two important versions of this argument. The first is that the essential moral moment for a human embryo is implantation into the uterine wall. The argument in support of this claim is that if nothing is done to an embryo in a dish, it will not grow to be a person, but if it is implanted, it will. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, the moral significance of an in vitro embryo falls short of the moral rights of an implanted and growing human embryo in the womb. This reason has convinced some people who otherwise are pro life to nevertheless support embryonic stem-cell research. They believe that implantation, not fertilization is the bright moral line after which the fetus must not be harmed.
The second version of this argument claims that neither the human embryo in a dish nor the fetus in a womb is a bearer of moral rights until birth or perhaps viability. The argument in support of this claim is that the ability to live outside a host body is an essential moral requirement to qualify for moral rights. If this argument is valid, it justifies not only embryonic stem-cell research, but also elective abortions. Of course this argument must overcome the facts of fetal development, but if it is defended successfully, embryonic stem-cell research is a moral piece of cake.
So, is the human embryo in a dish really a bearer of moral rights? Stop yelling. Start thinking. It is important for us as a moral culture not merely to argue for an answer. We must live our way into the answer.
