Okay, so here’s my take on what appear to be your arguments: 1. Killing newborns is wrong because they can feel pain. 2. Dead people, or people’s severed body parts, are pretty much the same as embryos. 3. The cells being used for ESCR would never develop into humans anyways. So, the first problem I have with your arguments is that you draw a distinction between killing embryos and newborns because newborns can feel pain. Therefore, if one follows your argument to a logical conclusion, as long as someone does not feel pain, it is permissible to kill them. However, there are humans who do not feel pain, and I’m not just referring to people on painkillers or anesthesia. There is a condition called “congenital insensitivity to pain” that causes a person to be unable to feel pain. According to the logic of your argument, it would be okay to kill that person. Obviously, however, that is not how morality works. The second issue I found with your argument is when you equated embryos to corpses and severed limbs. It’s true that, as Alvin said, neither have much cognition; however, we need to realize the difference between not having cognition anymore (corpse) and not having cognition yet (embryo). Another, more obvious, distinction is that the embryos are alive, whereas a corpse or severed limb is dead. Perhaps all of the individual cells are still alive, but this alone does not constitute life as those cells are not communicating with one another and working as a unit. The embryo’s cells, on the other hand, are all working together as a whole being. Science has repeatedly affirmed that embryos are living and whole beings from the moment of fertilization. It has made no such claims regarding corpses and severed limbs. Finally, your claim that the embryonic stem cells used in ESCR would never develop into human beings anyways is perhaps technically true, but it is still problematic. Embryonic stem cells, just on their own, would never develop into human beings, just like my skin cells never would. However, I am not advocating the view that embryonic stem cells are human beings, but that the embryos that those cells come from are. The problem I have with ESCR is that in order to harvest those cells to use for research, the embryo dies in the process, and science says that those embryos are human beings. So essentially, we are intentionally killing innocent humans so that we may have access to their cells. That is the part that I believe is morally wrong.

Ok, I'm back. It's been a while since I had other stuff to do. Now back to business, when I said sentience gives us value, never did I say one has to be more sentient than the other. Of course it wouldn't be OK to kill a newborn, because biologically speaking, they have a brain and nervous system developed enough to process thought and feel the pain of needles. Also, sentience is more of an internal property, not external. External would be race, gender, class, age, etc. With what Alvin said, the flaw in the "humanness no matter stage" logic is that then a dead person would also be considered worth protecting. Next thing you know, even a severed arm or a pile of guts would be considered "human". Last of all, you're talking about the wrong ball of cells. Don't forget, the embryonic stem cells the scientists engineer to make organs weren't built to grow into any human being whatsoever, thus I don't see why people would make a big fuss over something not meant to be a human. But to be fairer on the side note, I do have to give you credit for having feelings for things I see little to no value on. It's just that our values are different. But hey, that's why we're people. (Signed in as guest 'cuz I forgot my password and can't reset it.)

Thanks for your comment! My understanding of your position (and feel free to correct me if I misrepresent you) is that since embryos are not as developed as born humans, “terminating” them (as you put it) and using their cells for research isn’t immoral. The problem I have with this position is that (similar to the sentience argument I addressed in a below comment) differences in level of development exist in all humans. For example, my 5-month-old nephew is certainly less developed than I am (he can’t walk or talk or even crawl), yet that doesn’t mean that he is less valuable than I am and that killing him for medical research is justifiable. If our level of development determines our worth, then there is no such thing as human equality, and that puts us in a very bad spot. It reminds me of a quote by Abraham Lincoln: “You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.” While Lincoln isn’t addressing the same issue that we are, I think there is something to be learned here if we substitute “level of development” for “color” (or “intellectual superiority,” Lincoln’s second example). If our level of development determines our value, run away very quickly from anyone more developed than you. Also, I believe I addressed in my article that ESCR has been ineffective despite all of the research that has already been conducted, so I don’t really see any “good” to be gained in it, whereas adult stem cell research has seen some success and doesn’t raise any ethical issues.

There is nothing wrong with embryonic stem cell research (and discovery). You're right that a human being is a human being from conception onwards. But dead people are also human beings and embryos, at the time they are terminated and are still useful as stem cell donors, are just as cognizant as dead people are. Just calling them humans doesn't really mean much. There are all sorts of stages of development of human and embryos are not at any stage where we should feel morally disturbed to see them perish (even though I know that sounds harsh to some people, it's still true in my opinion). The good that we stand to gain is more than justified in harvesting these cells from non-thinking, non-feeling, non-aware, under-developed humans that never saw the light of day nor made it much farther than the zygote stage.

Thanks!!! I really appreciate your comment!

YES!! Thanks so much for your article and this comment! I greatly appreciate your addressing this controversial topic and handling it so well. The ESCR case has always troubled me. It is morally wrong, and by killing humans -no matter how small, we are killing the future of our nation. Same to you, too, KX9000. I might not agree with your position on the matter, but I love that you shared your opinion as well. It helped me to learn more about how you view the issue, and it was a great experience for me to learn that. (Thanks to both of you for being so respectful and polite as you exchanged varying views. Part of the reason I love Teen Ink is that everyone respects each other and their beliefs while still getting their points across. Which, truthfully, is more than many adults can say! :) )

Thank you! Your comment made my day!

Thank you for writing this, I completely agree and I really loved reading your opinion. Keep writing :)

Thanks for commenting! The problem I have with the "sentience gives things value" position is that it undermines human equality because no two people have the same amount of self-awareness. This would result in some people being more valuable than others, and this clearly cannot be correct. Also, under this logic, one could justify killing newborns or unconscious people since they are not self-aware. As soon as we declare that some external property (whether it is ethnicity, gender, or sentience) is what gives humans value, we demean someone. The only quality that all humans share equally is our humanness, so that must be the property that gives us value and rights, and science is pretty firm that the preborn are living, distinct, and whole human beings from the moment of conception; therefore, they are as valuable as fully-grown humans and deserve the same protections as we enjoy.

Ok, excuse me if I sound inconsiderate, but I too have some strong opinions on this big battleground of a subject. To me, if ANYTHING living were to prove its worth of protection under the moral of doing no harm towards living beings, it needs to be sentient. In other words, it should be able to think, have emotions (be it joy, fear, and sadness), and have nerves to feel pain with. Unfortunately, the embryos you defend can't fill any of these criteria, the reason being they haven't got the parts developed enough to do the job at all. Also, why else do vegans exist? They care about the well being of the animals they so protect, which DO fill the criteria of sentience mentioned. Sure, an embryo or a fertilized egg cell can be considered "alive", but only in most of the same senses as my eye, a carrot, mold on a wall, and bacteria. The point being, I believe it's really the sentient that deserve the dignity it needs to be protected by ethics and morals.