Embryonic Stem Cells

I have been talking recently in my biology class about the morality of embryonic stem cell research. This has really opened my eyes to both sides of the argument.

A big anti-embryonic stem cell argument is that stem cells should be thought of in the same way as regular people and that no on has any right to destroy them. This 60 Minutes segments highlights this argument from 4:08 until the end of the video.



In my opinion, the biggest fault in the interviewees argument, the interviewee is a bioethicist named Robert George, is that there are already embryos that are destroyed everyday in fertility clinics. Why then does Robert George have a problem with embryonic stem cell research but not the fact that the embryos are being tossed in the trash?

This is a spring board for the most convincing pro embryonic stem cell research argument that I have heard. The same 60 Minutes segment from 2:15-3:04 highlights Art Caplan who is another bioethicist who is pro embryonic stem cell research. Art Caplan also brings up the fact that on top of embryos being destroyed on a regular basis at fertility clinics, there are people in wheelchairs, people trying to cure cancer, and people trying to understand genetic diseases. These factors coupled with the fact that there are thousands of embryos that will never be used for anything can only point to research.

After hearing these two arguments I have to conclude that the anti-stem cell research argument is hypocritical. I really do not see how an argument against embryonic stem cell research can be made. But this is obviously a very complicated issue that has many factors that I haven't taken into account. Are there any other anti-embryonic stem cell research arguments that can counter the fact that embryos are going to be thrown out anyway?