The Conflict of Aborted Fetus' Being Used in Stem Cell Research Continues to Linger

Since Roe v. Wade, scientists have tried their hardest to diminish the value of human life. If allowing a woman to end the life of a miracle developing in her body wasn't enough, creating life by scientific way has topped the unethical cake. One may ask "Where is the line drawn"? Are we so obsessed with knowledge that we have to take the most unethical methods in order to fuel our knowledge hungry obsessions? That's not all though. With these scientific means of medical breakthroughs, lives can be saved, but only at the hefty price of another. It doesn't have to be that way

Stem cell research has been a great medical advancement for science and health, alike. Stem cells are blank cells that have the ability to self renew and mature into mature specialized cells. (Scott, 2006). These cells are derived from donors whether it be an aborted fetus or placentas and cord blood that is found in umbilical cords.

In one particular study, found in the New Scientist, a chemical cocktail can make adult's (or any other person) skin cells into embryotic - like stem cells. With this particular study, there are not ethical boundaries crossed. Because of ethical barriers and controversy, why shouldn't we find better means to obtaining stem cells? Some may find that since the fetus has expired it is "okay" to derive stem cells from aborted fetuses.

In the late 1980's, just seven years after Roe v. Wade, and after an experimental implant of fetal tissue to treat disease, rose great concern. Many felt that women would purposely get pregnant just to become a fetal donor. This is a concern that continues to linger today. With the growing need for stem cell research to treat disease and other ailments, are our morals and ethics as a society taking a backseat to finding better alternatives to deriving stem cells? Most can agree.

Let's take a closer look at statistics in regards to the very act of abortion and ask ourselves a question. If need be and we were benefited by stem cell research, either directly or indirectly could we morally rationalize that and continue to feel great about living? If the answer is "yes", we will look closer. Consider the 30+ million babies that have been aborted since 1973, Roe v. Wade. On average and from my own personal experience, a woman doesn't even know she is pregnant until she is at least two weeks into the gestation of the fertilized egg.

Fourteen days after fertilization, an embryo has developed what is known as it's primitive streak. This is when a groove forms on the surface of the growing human embryo. (New Scientist, 2006). When the streak is fully developed, it thickens at the end to form a structure that generates chemicals; triggering the formation of the neurons system (New Scientist, 2006).

Many believe this is when an embryo reaches a full moral status. With this ideal, would one morally be able to benefit from the stem cells of a human life that was even able to feel itself being aborted? Could one with any morals enable their conscience to accept the medical benefits at the expense of the innocent? Who could beg to differ?

The act of stem cells research alone is not what the concern is. The concern lies in the fact that there is yet another reason to accept abortion. Not only that, there is concern on whether or not stem cells derived from dead fetuses will be subjected to future supply and demand.

Taking the revelation of abortion and applying it to the need for stem cells can be catastrophic for mankind. Before we know it, woman will get pregnant just to have an abortion for a fee. What once cost money may soon become a need and worthy of charging money to the ones performing the abortion. What does this say about society? Afterall, up until President Obama came along, the act of abortion was frowned upon by much of the government. Congress really doesn't want to be a part of any accountability to abortion. That was until Obama came on the scene (Wertz, 2002).

When is this going to stop? As far as abortion ceasing, it's looking pretty dim. Stem cell research is an advancement in medicine as well as a scientific breakthrough. Much can be accomplished with this research. That is why, in order to maintain ethical guidelines and moral values, there has to be better means to obtaining these cells.

Consider a newborn baby and their umbilical cord. There are thousands of these precious life giving parts that are thrown out on a regular basis. Even more than this, there has been recent studies that show a placenta has more stem cells in them than umbilical cords. (Townsend, 2009) Wouldn't it be more ethical to use this method for obtaining stem cells than ending the life of the innocent?

Stem cells derived from a donated life giving placenta would not only be credited as bringing life to one person, but also giving health to another. Most can agree that the stem cells that saved their life came from a placenta verses a dead fetus is a lot more humane. After all, we all want to live and have a chance at a better quality of life.

As we now know and have discovered, placentas contain more stem cells than umbilical cords. Let's take a closer look at some startling statistics. As of June 2005, the blood that was derived from umbilical cords and used in stem cell research has saved the lives of 20,000 (Roszak, 2005). The Diseases that were cured included leukemia, lymphoma and sickle cell anemia, to name a few. This is just the beginning though.

Consider the five years that has lapsed. 1.3 million abortions are conducted a year here in the United States, alone. That is over 6 million abortions since 2005. Those 6 million abortions could have potentially been 6 million births. From those 6 million births, we could have not only benefited from 6 million umbilical cords, but also 6 million placentas.

Consider the lives that could have been saved through birth and diseases.It is definitely more ethical to collect cord blood for stem cell research than through an abortion. It is definitely a painless procedure that never interfers with human life. Cord blood has cured some 77 diseases. The price to store cord blood may be costly to some. It is about $1500 to store and then $100 to maintain it every year. This would be a great investment, especially if you have a relative that can benefit from the cord blood at a later time. (Cohen, 2006).

Much has come and gone since Roe v. Wade, including well over 30 million babies. The government doesn't wasn't to "agree" with abortion, but Uncle Sam is no making tax payers pay to fund both stem cell research and abortion. There are certainly cheaper, more ethical and safer ways to saving lives than by destroying them. Will it take another 30 million dead babies to see that? Where's your primitive streak?

Camosy, C. (2008). The Subject of the scourge: questions implications from natural embryo loss.

American Journal of Bioethics, 8(7), doi: 10.1080/15265160802248419

Cohen, M. (2006). Stem cells: tapping a different source. Business Week Online.

Roszak, D. (2005). National coordination urged for collection, use of stem cells from umbilical

cords. Hospitals and Health Networks, 79(6), 84-88.

Scott, Christopher. (2006). Stem cells now. New York: Pipress.

Wertz, D. (2002). History of us stem cell research. Gene Therapy, 9(11).

Warning: Using any of this material without properly citing reference is against the law. This is my work and I put it here for your convenience. Permissions to use material from this article may be granted upon request. You can email me here. Thanks