An embryonic stem cell line is obtained by harvesting stem cells from a fertilized egg at the (blastocyst stage). The stem cells are then placed on a petri dish in order to duplicate, grow, and later used for treatment.
The pressing question is, can we use stem cells from an early stage developing embryo in order to treat patients? The debate against stem cell harvest presents itself as follows: “When you harvest embryonic stem cell line, you are simultaneously destroying an embryo.”
But I yearn to reveal a facet that is never spoken of in the dispute against stem cell research.
Embryos are presently being obliterated in other practices; namely, in-vitro fertilization. Here, they reap multiple eggs from the ovaries and begin to fertilize them with semen; consequently, all of the eggs become zygotes. Subsequently, they allow the zygotes to develop to the (blastocyst stage), and only the ones that are ‘deemed’ healthier are then embedded into the uterus in hopes that one of the blastomere will become an embryo. Nonetheless, the other blastocysts are subsequently terminated. Hence, for every one embryo that has the potential to develop into a full fleshed human being, tens are destroyed.
So if in-vitro fertilization is destroying tens of potential embryos for the sake of producing a potential viable human being, then why is it wrong to utilize stem cells from a ‘potential’ embryo to better the life of an already existing human being? (Keep in mind that it is possible in modern day technology to harvest few stem cells without negatively impacting the developing embryo).
Opponents of embryonic stem cells that grasp onto the premise – stem cells harvest destroy potential human embryos – must on a similar philosophical ground, oppose in-vitro fertilization given that both of these approaches involve the destruction of zygotes.
I am not against in-vitro fertilization; rather, I aim to unveil the gap in reasoning of those who cherry-pick what they want to support.
Rationalism entails the adoption of philosophical wholeness in logic
philosophical Epiphany 
I am with you. I like the way you think. Good argument. It should be a no brainer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree. I think the religious hold us back.
LikeLiked by 2 people
At least it’s better than cloning …
LikeLiked by 2 people
Although I can see the logical inconsistency in the argument of those who oppose stem cell research, I’m a little worried that they’ll simply respond to it by deciding to ban in-vitro fertilization as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The context makes the difference. Here the context is logically wholly. Let me illustrate–>
Rational conclusion:
A and B are both letters. Therfore, A=B (in the context of being members of the alphabets).
Irrational conclusion:
A does not Equal B because A has a different shape. Therefore, A=B (in the context of being members of the alphabets).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m sure you’re right about the logic of it. I’m just not convinced that logic has the prominence in politics that it perhaps deserves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on PenneyVanderbilt.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you 🙂
LikeLike
This is of course a very difficult and necessary discussion. Basically I agree with you, that arguing for one thing ought to result in the same argument for the other thing, either for or against using stem cells. Personally I am not very much opposed to harvesting stem cells, I am rather concerned by the ethics around their use. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I strongly agree with your remarks. The use ought to be regulated
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very rational explanation ~ and I learned something. The pieces of facts/opinions that get shouted around can be so deafening that logic is often forgetten.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well Said! Thank you 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you for great content
LikeLiked by 2 people
That means a lot! Thank you 🙂
LikeLike