That Stem Cell Research should be legal.

1. Con begins his argument by asking why embryonic stem cells are used at all. I've already answered this in my R1 argument. Embryonic stem cells are more valuable, because they retain the ability to divide and make copies of themselves indefinitely. Adult stem cells are more limited and specialized than embryonic stem cells. They have the ability to make just one or two kinds of tissue, such as blood and immune system cells, brain or muscle cells. Adult stem cells also have a more limited capacity to replace themselves than do embryonic stem cells [1]. Additionally, in only five years between 2000 and 2004, adult stem cells used in some 25,000 bone marrow transplant treatments have been complicit in at least 3,629 American deaths, 624 of which involved children under the age of 18 [2]. 2. Regarding the rights of the unborn, only 36 states have a ban on partial birth abortions at the moment. That means that a lot of people disagree with your ideology that "killing before it cannot be considered a good thing." There are various philosophies that dictate moral values, and I'd rather not get into the abortion debate since this debate is about stem cell research. So moving on, you said, "So if people are deciding to use fetuses that are aborted anyways for SCR, the abortion rate will rise. They will want more embryonic stem cells, and they will find ways to get people to have abortions and give the stem cells to them." That is a completely fallacious and unsupported argument which cannot be accepted, because you have provided no reasoning or evidence to support it. If you can in R3, so be it. 3. Your next point was that embryos are being killed being killed despite there being no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that embryonic stem cell research is helpful. First of all, this is a blatant lie considering that in R1 I've already explained how embryonic stem cell research has already been successful and helpful in its first phase. Second, these embryos aren't being killed despite anything; these embryos have already been set aside to be killed, and would be destroyed via abortion whether stem cell research was being utilized or not, so this is a moot point. 4. Next, you asked, "If a stem cell is just a blank cell, then why is an adult stem cell any different from an embryonic stem cell?" Answer: Adult stem cells are more limited and specialized than embryonic stem cells. They have the ability to make just one or two kinds of tissue, such as blood and immune system cells, brain or muscle cells. Adult stem cells also have a more limited capacity to replace themselves than do embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells could never be used in patients because the use of viruses to reprogram these adult cells predisposes the cells to cancer. As a result, these cells cannot replace the use of embryonic stem cells. There is widespread agreement among leading stem cell researchers, including the scientists that developed iPS cells, that research must continue on all types of stem cells including those derived from embryos [1]. 5. Con continues by claiming that a blastocyst should be considered a human being because it will ultimately develop into a human being. Well, a caterpillar will eventually develop into a butterfly, but until it does, it's still considered a caterpillar... because that's what it is - a caterpillar, not a butterfly. Nevertheless, this argument is completely useless because abortion is legal. If abortion is legal, then it is logically absurd for stem cell research to be illegal. Again, issues regarding morality, rights and values stem from philosophy. I am from the camp that believes an unconscious fetus (a fetus younger than about 20 weeks old) has no rights, and therefore embryonic research is morally permissible. You said, "just because it [the fetus] isn't protected by law doesn't make it inhuman." Whether I agree or disagree, this debate IS about the law and what should be legal. Something not protected by law has no legal rigts. 6. Finally, Con says that embryonic research may lead to human cloning or other scientific development that he considers immoral. This is a blatant example of the slippery slope fallacy, and as such cannot be held against me. Stem cell research - the topic of this debate - is not about "growing people" so it's irrelevant. Not only are the two unrelated with different procedures and purposes, but it would be abusive for me to have to defend something (cloning and the like) since it does not pertain to the resolution. As such, I'll extend all of my arguments from the previous round and send this debate back to my opponent. Good luck! [1] http://www.umich.edu... [2] http://www.wired.com...