Bonnie Steinbock's Arguement For Embryonic Stem

The Mistreatment of Human Embryos for Embryonic Stem (ES) Cells

Bonnie Steinbock, in her paper entitled, “What Does “Respect for Embryos” mean in the Context of Stem Cell Research?” argues that using human embryos for embryonic stem cell research is immoral and illicit. She forms her argument on the “consideration of the human subject from the moment of conception” (Bioethics 592). The author supports her argument with five reasons as to why using human embryos for ES research. She explains that the moment the gametes unite, an embryo with human rights is formed. Building off of her first statement, the author explains that it is immoral and illicit to intervene in the development of an individual with rights in a non-favorable way, because

it has a right to its own life. Therefore, the author’s third reasoning is that because using stem cells for ES research leads to destroying the blastocyst, using embryos in this way is immoral and illicit. Another argument that the author makes is that the outcome of something does not justify the actions taken to get there. Lastly, Steinbock states that according to the Catholic Church, The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception…” (Bioethics 593). In this paper, I intend to support the motion that using existing human embryos for the formation of ES research is not only immoral, but also illicit.
Steinbock’s argument can be reconstructed as follows: 1) If gametes unite and the resulted embryo is considered a “human individual” with rights, then it is considered a violation of rights if an intervention takes place that is not in favor of the individual. 2) Gametes unite forming an embryo that is considered a “human individual” with rights 3) therefore, it is immoral and subsequently illicit to intervene with the development of a living embryo. Steinbock then goes on to argue, “a good end does not make right an action which in itself is wrong” (Bioethics. 593).
Steinbock’s argument is valid, since it follows the form of modus ponens. Premise 1 is a sound argument. It is understood that once an embryo is conceived, it is a human with rights and moral standing. This premise is supported when Steinbock claims that, “on the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo is- from the moment of the union of the gametes- a human subject with a well defined identity…” (Bioethics 592). Once the gametes unite, the embryo is considered to have moral rights and therefore has moral standing. Embryos should be awarded their rights from the moment of conception.
Looking from the other side of the argument, opponents might believe that in this case, the good that comes from therapeutic procedures out weighs the negative backlash of damaging human embryos. The goal of these therapeutic procedures is to relieve individuals from a life of pain. The problem with this argument is that it is impossible to justify helping others by destroying something else. Especially, when the thing being destroyed has rights but is unable to defend them.
Destroying embryos during therapeutic procedures is immoral and illicit. Embryos are considered to be human individuals who possess human rights. By, intervening with the development of the embryo, the embryos rights are stripped away. I do believe that there is help out there for those who are suffering, but not at the expense of living embryos.