by Michael Skinner

Created on: November 07, 2009   Last Updated: June 21, 2010

Well first, why consider stem cells at all? What do they have or do that other cells don't? Stem cells are cells that can become any structure in the body. They could become nerves or bones or organs depending on how they are stimulated. Imagine a science fictional man who could lose an arm or a foot and such grow a new one. Or more practically, supposed we could replace the diseased or defective parts of the aged or infirm. That would surely be a boon.

Now an ideal way to do this would be to clone tissue from your own body to replace your aging organs since there would be no rejection issues if we used your own flesh to replace your own flesh. There would also be no ethical issues since your liver cell was not a human being in and of itself; nor did it have he capacity to become one.

The problem people have with fetal tissue research and embryonic stem cells is that you do have something that could potentially become a human being.

Even now, I firmly believe dictators around the world are having themselves cloned in hopes of harvesting the organs and keeping themselves alive. Most of us who are not hideous dictators are horrified by that prospect because unlike the dictator we can empathize and ask ourselves how we would like becoming conscious that we live and breathe only so that some day a chain smoker can rip our lungs out and live a few more months.

So for most of us that part of the ethical dilemma is solved. We say no to raising people just to harvest their organs for our own benefit.

But what about taking the eggs of a consenting woman and using them for research? On the surface, there appears to be no ethical dilemma in this. Just ask yourself what would have happened to those eggs if they proved unnecessary? They would have eventually been discarded.

Well what about the billions of women all over the world who basically lose one egg every month they do not have a child. And what about all the eggs that are left after a woman's child bearing years? Surely no one thinks God or nature is being immoral by not bringing all the eggs of all the women who have ever lived to term?

For me, it is difficult to take seriously the supposed ethical dilemma posed those who object to embryonic research. It just seems silly.

It is easier to see why some would object to fetal tissue research with aborted fetuses. It appears to be part and parcel of the same objection that some have to abortion.

My thinking is that it was due to experiments with cadavers that medical science is where it is today. Once the fetus is dead, the parents should be able to give permission for its body to be used for science.

My thinking about abortion in general is that Bill Clinton had the right prescription. Keep abortions, safe, rare and legal. There are so many alternatives to abortion, with alternative sex practices and contraception being the chief alternatives, that there should almost never be abortions. When there are, parents should be able to give consent for fetal tissue research and the life saving benefits thus derived.

Learn more about this author, Michael Skinner.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.