Critique (Reading Report # 4)

In my opinion, it is very hard to arrive to the conclusion in these disputes. At the beginning, I could not accept any sides in the debates because in some cases I agreed that stem cell research should be canceled because of the respect to embryos, on the other hand, I understood that stem cell research is a step forward to create stem cell therapy which will help many people around the world to treat diseases. I accede with Lisa Sowle Cahill’s opinion that at the beginning stem cell therapy will be costly for many people; nevertheless, after couple years I believe that it will be affordable by the rest of the population. There are two fundamental moral principles that I esteem very highly: first principle enjoins the prevention of suffering, and the other enjoins to respect the value of human life. While I was reading the book “Stem Cell Research”, I have been discouraged by two questions. Should we give more weight to the first principle, and permit embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second principle, and prohibit embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the embryo? According to several experts in this book, with whom I participate opinions, I arrived to the opinion that both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. I persuade into that Catholic institutions should not participate in embryonic stem cell research because if they will participate, public cannot get all benefits from stem cell research. Now, I can say for sure that stem cell research has to be fund by government. It was difficult to choose this side of the debates because each expert gave sufficient evidences to their opinions. In my opinion, Lisa Sowle Cahill tried to convince public opinion by using logical fallacy; she compares two different things such as stem cell therapy and lack of food and water.