The controversy of stem cell research raises concerns of immorality as well has benefit of humanity. The immorality possesses a strong basis in religion and principals of life while the benefits of humanity overlook or prove morality on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. Religion and personal beliefs of life create the immorality argument. On the other hand, religion also creates an argument proving forms of cloning were biblically permissible along with research demonstrating its many benefits to humanity. These benefits are a crucial point of the morality argument.
Primarily, stem cell research could pose immense benefit to humanity. With research progression, the potential of stem cells could be developed into cures for “a wide array of injuries and degenerative diseases that are disabling or even fatal.” These cures would be developed from the cloning of over 200 tissue types that stem cells have the ability to become. Despite the potential, the research of stem cells has shown little progression since their discovery in 1993.
At first glance, stem cell research looks to be going nowhere fast, however there are arguments to be made mentioning factors that pose considerable restriction upon its research. The most controversy causing restriction was George W. Bush’s vetoing of H. R. 810. This would have fueled stem cell research with the donation of embryo, from fertility clinics, that would have been thrown away otherwise. This veto restricted stem cell research facilities to use of embryos coming from the small number of sources from before. Bush’s based his decision off the morality conflict that embryos are destroyed in the process of harvesting of stem cells. This policy was reinstated by president Obama “in 2009, calling the controversy ‘a false choice between sound science and moral values’” (Allen 17). The moral values he speaks of refer to the conflict created by destruction of viable embryo.
The harvesting of stem cells touches the question of where life is started. If the embryo is considered to be living, stem cell research is just another way to murder. Both methods of harvesting stem cells pose controversy. The method of obtaining stem cells by in vitro fertilization creates controversy because it involves creation outside of the natural realm of reproduction. The natural realm referred to is fertilization inside the body, in contrast to the test tube setting of in vitro fertilization. Therapeutic cloning, the second method of obtaining stem cells, smokes up controversy because it involves the destruction of a viable embryo. Destruction of the viable embryo is seen as depriving it of its right to life. However, something that is nonliving cannot be given rights. That would be like giving a rock rights as if it were alive. Christian questions of bioethics can be answered by looking at the Book of Genesis in the Bible.
The book of genesis has been considered to be the foundation of answers to questions of Christian bioethics issues. In the broad spectrum, critics could say that God didn’t wish to be cloned. Genesis states that “Humans were created in the image of God, but not the identity” (Genesis 1:28). God is unique and can create out of nothing. In contrast, humans cannot created out of nothing, proving that God did not want to clone himself reproductively. Because this only refers to reproductive cloning, conclusions cannot be made substantially about God’s will in context of therapeutic cloning.
Similar to cloning, Genesis demonstrates that a man created his most appropriate partner from his rib (Genesis 2:30). The problem with this being an example of cloning is that a clone would be the same sex as the man, in which case the partner was not. A yield of the opposite sex would require genetic modification, which was permitted in this case. Interspecies, as mentioned in Genesis, would have had to be created in this way as well.
Interspecies chimera creation...