Do embryonic stem cells represent a human life?

Question

why or why not? what are the implications of this?

Answer 1

G'day Mango,

Thank you for your question.

Emryonic stem cells do not represent human life but they have the potential to become human life. They may also have the potential to save human lives which makes the ethical issues related to them so difficult. It may be possible to harvest stem cells without destroying the embryo which would make the ethical concerns much less.

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, which is an early stage embryo - approximately 4 to 5 days old in humans - consisting of 50-150 cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they are able to differentiate into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm. In other words, they can develop into each of the more than 200 cell types of the adult body when given sufficient and necessary stimulation for a specific cell type. When given no stimuli for differentiation, ESCs will continue to divide in vitro and each daughter cell will remain pluripotent. The pluripotency of ESCs distinguishes them from adult stem cells or progenitor cells, the latter two only having the capacity to form a more limited number of different cell types.

Because of their unique combined abilities of unlimited expansion and pluripotency, embryonic stem cells are a potential source for regenerative medicine and tissue replacement after injury or disease. To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research. This is not unusual for a new medical research field; in this case, the first human embryonic stem cell line was only reported in 1998.

I have attached sources for your reference.

Regards

Answer 2

The stem cells that are removed do not necessarily represent a new, potentially separate independant functioning human being, but that is what the embryo they are removed FROM represents.

If I personally were still an embryo, I'd be very leery about trusting someone who said they were just going to take SOME of my cells and put the rest of me back so I could finish developing into the wonderful and amazing human being that I turned out to be.

(My answer may not be quite so 'scientific', but I hope it's one you understand and relate to on an immediate personal basis.)

Answer 3

No. It represents a 'potential' life, but not a life in the way we think of a life. If a potential life is considered to be a life, then what about any female egg, which only needs a sperm? It still has the 'potential' of becoming a life doesn't it? And, for that matter so does a sperm.
Of course there is reason for drawing the line at "conception", but there is also good, and probably better reason for drawing the line at birth. This is where "life" as we know it, begins, because it is where the experiences that form our lives begin. To go beyond this and suppose that "life" began before birth may be a valid thing for one to believe, but it is only a belief, which anyone should have the right to subscribe to or not, depending on their own inner convictions. For one to insist that their own inner convictions must be adopted by everyone else is, or should be a non starter, because when it comes down to it, who is to say? I am the one who is to say for me, and you are the one who is to say for you. Nobody appointed anyone to be the dictator in this situation.