Against 1 Debates 2009 School Carpe Diem

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, members of the jury and the public in general.

My name's Daniela Aguila, I represent Colegio Carpe Diem School from Castro and I present the first speaker in the opposition Team.

Many scientists for Embryonic Stem Cell research would have you think the science and ethics behind research is mutually exclusive – or the science is an ethical justification in itself, disregarding all previous understanding of the value of human life . . . However;

Kristina Hug, Professor at Kaunas University of Medicine, Lithuania, raises two questions:

1. [Whether using “spare” human embryos for research means a lack of respect for the beginning of human life, and;
2. whether creation of embryos for research is morally worse than experimentation on already created, but unused human embryos.

According to these questions, the ethical dilemma of Embryonic Stem Cell research presents one major question:

• When does a human life begin?

Dr. Usala, of Encelle, Inc.,

• human life begins at the time an embryo is given the chance to divide and develop into a human –
  • once the process of multiplication and differentiation begins, thus begins the irreversible process of human development.
• Therefore, embryos used in stem cell research are the beginnings of human life; or, embryos are humans.

So we must ask ourselves: “Is a life for a life required?”

• The practice of embryonic research weighs saving a developed adult life against sacrificing the life of an early human.

If E.S.C. Become routine treatment, it would be accurate to say that science is sacrificing the life of a human for science.

We are using early humans as a means to an end . . . these embryos are now a mere “thing” used to solve problems, and not respected as a potential contributing human.

There are many genetic implications behind the treatments ESC offers.

• The most frightening of these implications comes from the desire for science to genetically engineer the fetus into a “perfect baby.” Sure, it would be great to be rid of diabetes, and autism – but does a woman simply ask the doctor to genetically transform her baby into something more “socially acceptable.”
  • I can't help but picture the woman asking the doctor: “Please transform my baby into something other than how he was created.”

Perhaps we should also consider the economic question:

• Will science breed a situation where women in poor developing countries – mainly from the southern hemisphere – find themselves selling their eggs to research companies in order for these companies to maintain their expensive stock?

The implications are limitless.

Whether it be the devaluation of human life, the desire to create perfect humans, or the exploitation of women and the poor – ESC research has the potential to severely damage the importance of human life.

Would it not be more responsible to stick with the already established ASC programs which respect human life by its very nature?

Or do we open the “Pandora's Box” of ESC research and risk the very antithesis of human ethics?