Arguments Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debate

1384 Words6 Pages
Embryonic stem cell research is the research of stem cells by removing embryos developed from fertilized eggs to be used for restoring tissue that has been damaged by diabetes, heart attacks, and other major injuries or disease (“NIH Stem Cell Information”). The controversy of this topic makes it difficult to decide whether it is right or wrong and impossible to respect both sides. Arguing for one side, the embryo must be destroyed to potentially save another human being’s life. And for the other, one life is always being sacrificed. Stem cell research destroys potential human life, and scientists should find other forms of research to obtain stem cells without harming anyone (“NIH Stem Cell Information”). While stem cells are removed (along with the embryo) and used for study to potentially save a life, more risks are taken in doing this than many people realize. As one of the biggest arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that the scientists are sacrificing human life, it is a fair…show more content…
However, if state and federal funding would be taken out, the research could possibly be stopped, and potential lives would no longer be threatened by stem cell research. The government is so heavily in debt, 19.5 trillion dollars to be exact. Only one option of funding being taken out would not make a magnificent difference, but any difference would help. Individual states donate approximately $640 million annually, while the federal government donates $40 million dollars annually. This is $40 million dollars that could be used for other research or charities or get the United States out of debt. Though the individual states have donated plenty more than the federal government, they could also be using the $640 million dollars to help the education system or something slightly more worthwhile

More about Arguments Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debate

Open Document