Embryonic stem cells and their therapies have sparked a lot of controversy in today's world regarding the definition of and respect for life. In order to extract embryonic stem cells, scientists have to destroy an early embryo, raising questions like:

• When does life begin?

• Is an embryo equivalent to a person?

• Do embryos have rights?

• Is it justified to destroy an embryo because it has the potential to save many more lives?

FOR: Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that the cells' potential to save and improve human lives justifies the destruction of just a single embryo. They maintain that an embryo is too early in the stages of development to be considered a human. In-vitro fertilization creates so many cells that many end up being unused, so the extra can serve as research tools for scientists instead of being wasted. The benefits of embryonic stem cells far outweigh the costs. 

AGAINST: Many religious leaders and pro-life activists have equated the destruction of an embryo to murder, asserting that embryos should be considered "human" and therefore deserve the same rights as any person. They argue that life begins at conception, and although the embryo isn't characteristic of a human being yet, it is in the process of developing into a "full human". They advocate for the use of adult and cord blood stem cells to treat diseases and medical issues.

No matter what the arguments for/against embryonic stem cells are, new developments are being made that will allow other types of stem cells to be used. Induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSCs), an alternative to embryonic stem cells, were developed in 2006. Research suggests that IPSCs have great potential in treating many of the same conditions that embryonic stem cells can, since they are both pluripotent stem cells. Hopefully the debate on embryonic stem cells will settle down in the next few years, as new alternatives and solutions arise to the ethical and social issues concerning embryonic stem cells.