Question

Explain Sandel’s defense of human embryonic stem cell research and Lee and George’s reply to Sandel. Then give evidence that Lee and George’s reply succeeds or fails.

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) The ethical issue in question about embryonic stem cell research is that the extraction of stem cells destroy the Blastocyst, which is a yet to be implanted human embryo that is between its sixth to the eighth day. This means that the research entails the destruction of a conceivable human life.

Sandel’s argument about this issue is that one should view an embryo as either having a complete moral status or having no moral status at all. He has used this argument against people who view the embryo as having a moral status. However, it is the same argument used by both sides.

George and Lee argue that an embryo is an entity that shares a certain identity with its older future adult self. This is something that would be unethical to destroy. Also, they argue that an embryo is simply a stage in human life. Just like the destruction of life at the stage of infancy or adulthood or any other stage would be immoral, so would it be with the embryo.

Technically, Lee and Gorge put up a fair argument in saying that an embryo is an initial stage in the life of a human being. Killing the embryo at this stage simply because it cannot think for itself is just like harming an animal for no valid reason simply because it has no say in the matter.

However, Sandel’s argument is right in that one should pick an absolute side with this argument. Either one might consider an embryo to be a life form with a moral status or one doesn’t. If there are any further debates about this topic, it is essential that there are only two sides.