Stem by studying stem cells that have been

Stem cells contain great promise and success for the future of medicine. In fact, stem cell-based therapies have been created to heal illnesses that previously had no cure to begin with. Such as how bone marrow transplantation is handled to treat leukemia, hemophilia, and other blood disorders. The hematopoietic stem cells in bone marrow are injected into a patient who has strictly diminished blood cell levels and the stem cells generate new blood cells, revitalizing the patient’s immune system. Remedial treatments such as this will advance to be searched out and identified with the support of stem cell research. Furthermore to the development of revolutionary therapies, stem cell research also equips beneficial information about structures regulating cell evolvement, migration, and differentiation. Scientists can learn about these developments by studying stem cells that have been accelerated to set apart into distinct types of body cells. The discovery of new knowledge about these concepts will allow scientists to better understand early human development and how tissues are preserved throughout one’s lifetime.  So if extensive impairments like the ones listed can be partially or entirely treated, why don’t we put them to use? What is the principled issue regarding the harvesting and use of these stem cells?  The prime controversial issue of this type of research is the status of the human embryo.  When the inner cell mass of the embryo is taken, the embryo deceases.  The reason for this is because the inner cell mass is what forms the three germ layers of the human body, so without it the embryo will no longer grow.  People who are in opposition to the harvesting, research, and use of these exclusive cells are known to be “pro-life.”  They are customarily religious people who believe that the four-day-old embryo has a soul and is manifestly murdered when harvested.  The pro-lifers believe that the research of these stem cells “instrumentalizes and violates the faith and purity of life.”  They make the altercation that the embryo is potentially a possible human being and see human life as starting the instant an egg becomes fertilized.  This is the first flaw in their argument.  Scientifically, an embryo is not human until it starts to perform basic human functions.  At the time of harvest, it is only a batch of cells no different than any of the other cells in the human body.  While they are correct that the embryo is a implied human, the embryo is not yet human by any scientific standards.