Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Life Saver or Life Taker?

I'll be honest and say right off hand that I support embryonic stem cell research (let's call it ESCR for short to save my lazy fingers from typing it so many times). Now, I'm not a Liberal but I'm not Republican if you have read my other entries you'd know that; let's get that out of the way right now. My opinions are from my own research and studies (I wrote a paper on this and changed my views after studying ESCR) Many people here in Utah disagree with me, and they do not understand why my opinion is swayed toward such an "evil act that is not condoned by God." (This is a statement I saw someone make on an opinion article on the Deseret News web site) To be straight forward, I do not see it as murder. Let's take a look at what ESCR really is.

ESCR is the study of manipulating a newly fertalized egg (hence, embryonic research) to grow as any other cell in the body. How can this be done? When an egg is fertalized by a sperm cell the sperm cell begins to split. The cells continue splitting until they develop into germ layers (in short). Once in germ layers the specific organs, skeletal system, nervous systems, etc. are developed from one of those specific germ layers. In a lab studying ESCR they take donated reproductive products and artificially fertilize the egg in a lab (please remember this for future discussion below). Before the germ layers form scientists stop the embryo from developing any further (I don't understand how the whole process is done but this is what they do). Why do they do this? Before cells develop into the germ layers they can be manipulated to grow as any type of cell/tissue in the body. Once the embryo splits into germ layers they cannot reverse the process and the cells cannot be manipulated easily. Stem cell research is still done after this time, but it has a different purpose for the most part. I've never been able to get a straight answer as to how the process works thereafter due to the conflicting web pages on the net. However, from what I understand they then use those stem cells created from the embryo to replace damaged or lost tissue in the body. For example, I read one article where an ill woman with a bad liver went to China (stem cell research is more widely accepted and used in China) to receive treatment. They used stem cells to help regrow healthy liver cells and the individual has almost fully recovered. In any other circumstance she was going to die (told by her many doctors).

Now, for those that are against ESCR I can understand. The view I've heard the most is that it is taking away a life that could have been. I understand how you see that, as fertilization does take place and life begins to grow. A constant debate in the United States right now is when the spirit enters the body of an unborn child (if you are religious that is). Being a member of the LDS Church I am in the minority for approving ESCR, but to keep the record straight the LDS Church has neither officially condemned nor approved the study of ESCR. There are many debates among LDS members as to when the spirit does enter the body, but nothing has been officially announced. There have been opinions stated by leaders of the Church but opinions are not doctrine.

In addition, many people have compared ESCR to abortion. Again, I see where you're coming from and respect your opinion regarding the issue. Abortion is taking a live embryo/fetus out of the mother in order to terminate the life. I am not a supporter of abortion, and will explain to you why abortion is completely different.

First things first, remember that the reproductive products (sperm and eggs) are donated to ESCR centers willingly. This leads to the fact that the sperm and egg are artificially fertilized in a lab and grown in a dish. Embryos are not taken from a uterus inside of a woman. How can I justify this as not preventing life? Well, being a PE teacher and a coach I've come accustomed to saying the phrase, "Use it or lose it" to my students (mainly in regards to muscle development and loss). If you are not going to use it you're going to lose it. Men and women that are not going to use these products of reproduction, therefore, preventing life in their own way. Instead, they donate it to be used for studies. Waste it, or try something productive?

In addition to the above comments we have to remember that life can only start when sperm and eggs come together from sexual intercourse (if not in a lab). For those to say ESCR is murder do not understand the strength in hypocrisy of their accusations. What do I mean? Well, if you believe it is murder let me ask you a few questions (and you have to have had sex at least once to answer, otherwise, you don't apply):

1 - Have you ever used contraceptions or contraceptive actions of any type (i.e. condoms, birth control, onanism, day after pill)?
2 - (Men)Have you ever had sexual intercourse when your partner (hopefully your spouse right ;) was not ovulating?
3 - Have you ever attempted artificial insemination of any type without success?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions you are a murderer according to your own standards. How you ask? Lets look at it one by one. First, if you use contraceptions you are PREVENTING life. Contraceptions are used to prevent fertilization by either preventing reproductive products to be produced, or preventing them from getting together for a little tea party (notice the number of times I said preventing). Therefore, you are preventing a possible life that could have been. Second, when you have sexual intercourse when your partner is not ovulating the sperm is going to die and fertilization will not take place. Knowingly doing this is murder because you are preventing life. Third, artificial insemination (if failed) kills both the sperm and egg cells used in the attemp(s). Murder. Sound ridiculous? Well, in my opinion so is your claim about ESCR in the same manner. If you can justify any of the three questions above you are really less productive than ESCR. Do I really believe that any of the three questions above are considered "murder?" No, I believe the choices above are based on what people decide to do in their lives regarding the subject. However, in my opinion calling ESCR murder is the same as calling the above murder; it's all the same thing if you think about it.

ESCR actually can save lives, therefore not preventing life. How ironic is that? When stem cells are successfully grown and used it helps save lives. Is it better to waste the stem cells that were not going to be used by the donors than to provide hope to someone dying? It does not make sense to me that it should be wasted. Wasting the products prevents life, so how is using them to save another person's life murder?

Now the heated debate, abortion VS ESCR. Here is my opinion and you do not have to agree because you have the freedom to think how you want, but ESCR and abortion are completely different. I explained what ESCR is above. Abortion is taken a live embryo/fetus out of the human body (something ESCR does not do since it is all lab work) for the intent to TERMINATE the living cells/fetus. The sole purpose of abortion is elimination without possibility of life. ESCR is the study to prolong life using DONATED human materials in a lab. Abortion is a cop out for "mistakes" for people not ready to take responsibility for their actions in most situations (not all, there are exceptions in my opinion where abortion is acceptable). The debate over when the spirit enters the body can't be solved because it is all based on opinion. Until that time it's your opinion against mine. It can't be used in this debate because there is no physical proof, spiritual revelation, etc. that pinpoints this important time in life. I'm sorry, but that's just not a good argument to say when the spirit actually enters the body in this case.

I've read and even used the study conducted at UCLA to my advantage and in hope it works out. If you do not know what I'm talking about, you can go to the following link for further information:

http://www.worldhealth.net/news/ucla_researchers_transform_stem_cells_fo

If you do not want to read the article it sums up some studies at UCLA that have successfully manipulated fat cells taken from liposuction patients into smooth muscle (vital organs in the body). Hey, that's awesome! Until they become just as successful at this as ESCR then I'm all for making the switch. In fact, if they pay for my liposuction I have tons of fat to donate; that would be advantageous for multiple people! However, the first study on this was in 2001 that I read and it still hasn't been successful enough to be satisfactory. Until then, I'm a supporter of ESCR.

You still may disagree with my opinion but that's ok, because I disagree with yours and we could debate on this for a very long time. If you disagree please feel free to tell me why without trying to insult me or insult my ideas "just because" like the guy from California that has no idea what he's talking about (previous post). I provided my point of view using common sense and logic, so please do the same. I'd love to hear your ideas about this subject.