Embryonic Experimentation Debate

The main thesis of the Chapter is the ethical, moral, and political concerns regarding experimentation on human embryos. In the chapter, Philosopher Bonnie Steinbeck argues that embryos have a moral value, but do not possess a moral status. In her argument, moral value is when good reasons can be used to justify a being’s existence rather than objectifying it, and moral status is a being’s ability to have its own interests. For example, the ability for a being to feel pain. One would assume that a being would chose to not endure undue pain and seek to avoid it. Since embryos are not yet sentient, they cannot feel pain. In the late 1900’s Congress refused to authorize legislation for embryonic experimentation, even when the Ethics Advisory Board …show more content…
President Barack Obama’s removal of the Bush administration’s restrictions on federal funds for stem cell research. He explains that is important to understand that the research is a delicate process, and that is has the possibility to provide great benefits to medicine, such as the regeneration of cells in the human body. He also says he will not allow any federal funds for human cloning; stating that it is wrong and is not social acceptable. President Obama’s executive actions can’t over step the legislation passed by Congress in the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which, forbids federal funds for research that puts human embryos at risk of potential injury or even death. President Obama’s administration has indicated that it will abide by the amendment and not allow funds for stem cell research in which embryos are destroyed. This should benefit non-embryonic stem cell research such as adult and amniotic stem cell …show more content…
To make an argument an argument must have good reasons; the reasons should be relevant; and should also be supported by evidence. These reasons are made to provide justification for a position in ethics. However, an argument from absurdity does not have the components of good reasoning. Examples of this type of argument is one made by Nazi physicians: we should experiment on Nazi prisoners because they are just going to die anyway. This argument does not provide a good reason for experimentation on Nazi prisoners, only that the opportunity to use them will pass if not acted upon. This argument fails to mention the fact that Nazi prisoners are already being killed by Nazi soldiers and by illness due to poor living conditions. Since the argument from absurdity does not provide good reasoning to support a position, nor evidence, it is therefore, not an