The last idea of embryo’s status is that an embryo is merely a body part. Ones who support this idea often says that embryos have “no independent moral status and they are the property of the peoples body whom they came from”(Rickard, 2002, p. 12 ). Life and property should never be used synonymously.

Ronald Dworkin a legal and political philosopher points out that value of life can be seen in two ways. One way is the personal value. In a sense the value of one’s life to them self. Laws and rights have been created to protect the value of personal life. The second is a more intrinsic value. Dworkin uses a work of art as an example. A great work of art has value(Rickard, 2002, p. 11). This value makes it deserving respect and protection. Can a embryo be seen in the same light as paint on a canvas?

Are embryos subject to harm? When one is killed there is harm done to numerous people. Harm is done to those close to the deceased, the deceased it self, to society, and to the killer(Rickard 2002, p. 10). So is there such harm done by the destruction of an embryo? Harm can be defined as defeat of an interest. Such interest include beliefs, desires, expectations, aims, and purposes(Rickard 2002 p. 10-11) An embryo does not have beliefs, desires, expectations, aims, or purposes to be defeated. Although when a tree is cut down it self is not getting harmed but future potential interest are(Rickard 2002 p. 11). The loss of the environment on surrounding creatures is a harm. This can be applied to embryos. Embryos might not be subjects that can be harmed, but what repercussion can come about harming future potential interest? No one knows for these futures have not been actualized and there for can not be argued.

The prevention and alleviation of suffering is a fundamental belief. If we can stop pain and suffering we should. This is a basic consensus among all moral institutions. This research can bring about cures for millions of people around the world. From the elderly to the prenatal. Grandparents would no longer have to fear forgetting their family members as seen in Alzheimer’s disease. Stroke victims no longer will be a shadow of who they once were. The 2% of people over the age of 65 will not need to be treated for Parkinson’s disease(Murphy, 2001). This is just the beginning of the possible applications of stem cell based therapies. So it is established that much good can come from embryonic stem cell research. What is the controversy then? What would we allow scientist to do to create such medical astonishments? Would we allow them to kill?

Some topics in this essay:
Social Policy, Dworkin’s Dworkin, Medical College, Strokes Alzheimer’s, Ronald Dworkin, Stroke Association, Neurosurgical Institute, , Institute Health, stem cells, embryonic stem, stem cell, embryonic stem cell, adult stem, stem cell research, human life, cell research, adult stem cells, bone marrow, Strokes Parkinson’s, moral principals, bone marrow adult, destructive embryonic, destructive embryonic stem, marrow adult,