Though never endorsing the taking of a life, the government has already established precedents contrary to this primary point of opposition in the Supreme Court case Roe v Wade. Dealing with abortion rights, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it illegal to prevent any woman from obtaining an abortion granted the fetus is still not viable. (Roe v Wade) An embryonic cell is only in its very first stages of development when first harvested. According to this precedent, a legal argument cannot be made for issues brought about concerning the life of the embryonic cell. The government reinforced an objective opinion instead of following the principles of a specific religious organization. Further refuting the argument against stem cell research, Roe v Wade reaffirmed the right to privacy in the 14th amendment, supporting a woman’s right to choose. (Roe v Wade) In the context of stem cell research, this same constitutional right ought to be extended to individuals willingly offering embryonic cells for research. As is already established in Supreme Court rulings, the living status of cells used in research as an argument against stem cell research should present no legal opposition from the government.
In summary, this essay has discussed the argument against stem cell research; and it has focused on three main elements of the argument. These were: stem cell research and abortion, the problem of playing God, and stem cell research and the culture of life. All elements of the argument are animated by fundamental assumptions about the nature of life, of God, and of the role of the human being within the world. These assumptions, however, do not necessarily discredit the argument against stem cell research; and this is because the argument on the other side merely tends to make the converse assumptions, which are equally unjustified on strictly rational grounds. In short, it can be suggested that whatever position one takes on stem cell research, one's perspective is informed not by reason alone but by one's broader worldview.
Arguments Against Stem Cell Research
One key implication of the discussion above is that the argument against stem cell research is in fact a lucid one within the context of its premises, and that attempts to suggest otherwise are likely motivated not by the coherence of the argument as such but rather by a fundamental disagreement regarding initial premises. Moreover, another implication is that it is quite unlikely that disagreements over the morality of stem cell research will ever be resolved on purely rational grounds. This is for the simple reason that the argument against stem cell research (just like the argument for stem cell research) is ultimately motivated by theological assumptions. This is not meant to imply a weakness in the argument; rather, it is virtually inevitable that such assumptions will have to be made (whatever one's position), given the nature of the subject matter at hand and the way that the issue touches on some of the most profound mysteries of human existence.