We are living in the world where nature sets the rules. Each person has a unique purpose, imprinted on subconscious and spiritual levels of all creation. Nevertheless, it is difficult to define where human life begins, as on a long run potential human being is formed as soon as the nature had accepted the reproductive system to function. I agree with Allhoff (2005) who states that discarting stem cells from the embryos (28) is immoral and unethical. Nevertheless, Liao (2005) suggests compromise solutions, like parthenogenesis, can be a proper solution (8). Therefore, BTM should be banned, whereas parthenogenesis and other compromise solutions should be discussed for future purposes.
According to the researchers, despite having various destructive impacts, the BTM can save lives of thousands of people having incurable diseases, such as Parkinson’s. Taking a look at this issue from a cultural perspective, if South Korea would have been conducting the research on BTM for finding the cure for various incurable diseases, America would ban the research anyways due to the perspectives of such organizations as the Human Right Organizations would have put their foot down on establishing equal moral ground for the USA, in such a way prohibiting the BTM in favor of pro-life aspect. (Allhoff 2005; Liao 2005).
Ethical perspective suggests that the BTM is a dichotomous issue. It weighs a life of one unborn child on the scales with thousands of people suffering during all their lives. The negative aspects focus on the moral side of the beginning of life and the harm to the embryo. The positive approach claims that there is no need in harming the healthy blastocyst for obtaining stem cells any longer. In such a way, critically analyzing the debatable issue there is always a way to set a compromise which will introduce the competencies of responsibility, stewardship, and respect in all aspects.
Related Research essays