That Stem Cell Research should be legal.

Thanks, Con. I'll begin by dissecting my opponent's two premises: 1. Destroying the embryo is murder. A) I should point out that not all stem cell research deals with embryonic stem cells. In fact, there is "adult" stem cell research; these cells are more accurately called somatic stem cells, because they come from not only adults, but other sources. As such, no embryos or potential life are being destroyed in this regard, therefore this premise - at least in one sense - is entirely negated. B) Murder is defined as the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. Since the law permits abortion, then destroying an embryo is not committing murder. Legal abortion should mean legal stem cell research, logically speaking. C) On that note, any embryonic research is done on aborted fetuses. So, instead of "wasting" the potential human life, science has decided to gain from it and put that potential life to good use. Since the alternative to stem cell research on aborted fetuses is doing nothing with aborted fetuses, I'd argue that it's most beneficial and moral to try and gain potentially help others as a result of that research -- especially if the mother agrees to it. D) While life begins at conception, human beings don't have rights until they're born. As such, stem cell research is not violating the fetuses rights. I could go on, but let's take a look at Con's second argument. 2. There is no proof that stem cell research is useful. Bone marrow transplants have been performed for decades and involve the infusion of adult stem cells. Research based on embryonic and adult stem cells has yielded promising results for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and diabetes. Stem cell research also has generated new knowledge about basic cell mechanisms that is critical to understanding the causes of disease, such as cancer. While adult stem cells have been studied for decades, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998. There has not yet been time to develop new therapies using embryonic stem cells, though the overwhelming majority of stem cell scientists believe that to make the most rapid progress against disease, researchers must use all the weapons in their arsenal. That means using both embryonic and adult stem cells [1]. Moreover, neural cells in the brain and spinal cord that have been damaged can be replaced by stem cells. In the treatment of cancer, cells destroyed by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, which could be any given part of the human body. Dead cells of almost any kind, no matter the type of injury or disease, can be replaced with new healthy cells thanks to mind-boggling flexibility of stem cells [2]. Finally on this point, the phase 1 goals of human embryonic cell research has already been achieved. HEC have become an important vehicle for learning about tissue development and discovering the genes involved in self-renewal. Additionally, researchers have learned how to coax HEC cells to form many kinds of cells in the human body, including heart cells, motor neurons, and dopamine-producing brain cell amongst others. Plus, Con's only point in this regard was that 1/5 (which is a significant minority, by the way) died as a result of this research. Two things about that -- One, millions of animals are slaughtered for our enjoyment (food) each year; why is their death any less significant than the mice that die as a result of this? Two, Con has not supplied any research indicating any harm to (already born) human beings as a result of this research. -------------- Arguments for the Pro -------------- While adult stem cell research has been useful in the past, the reality is that HEC are more valuable to science. For instance, HEC's can develop into any cell type in the body, so they can form unlimited quantities of any cell type in the body thereby helping us understand inherited diseases, and allowing us to study human cells bearing the exact genetic defects that cause disease in patients. They will also allow us to discover safer and more effective drugs by making it easier to screen drug candidates. Research from stem cells can provide us with with information to offer new ideas for cures, treatment and prevention of things like Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer disease, stroke, heart disease, etc. Obviously this distinct understanding would provide significant social benefits for individuals, as well as economic gains for the society. While Con may argue that these economic gains are irrelevant, the fact remains that this research is conduced on aborted fetuses. Con's source says that those who value human life from the point of conception oppose embryonic stem cell research because the extraction of stem cells from this type of an embryo requires its destruction. In other words, it requires that a human life be killed, so they equate it to murder. Well first of all, I've already demonstrated how it's not technically murder, and second, the tiny blastocyst affected has no human features and more importantly no rights. Even if Con disagrees, the LEGAL aspect of this debate is to uphold the law. Since the embryo doesn't have rights, no laws are being violated and thus the research should remain legal. I'll now await my opponent's response. References: [1] http://www.umich.edu... [2] http://theviewspaper.net...