When does life begin? This is an age-old question that has been studied for centuries and everyone seems to have an opinion. Over the past decade, stem cell research has been an exciting and innovative way to seek cures for diseases and ways to improve the quality of life for many people. And the question of where life begins is at the heart of this research. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Stem cells are cells that can develop into any type of cell in the human body. Because these cells can develop into any cell, they have the potential to repair damaged tissue and potentially cure several diseases. Some diseases that scientists hope to cure are diseases caused by damage to the central nervous system, diabetes and vision problems. There are different types of stem cells, but they can be divided into three main categories: adult stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, and embryonic stem cells. The University of Nebraska Medical Center defines adult stem cells as cells found in the adult human body and found in different tissues. They can only transform into a specific cell type of the organ from which they come. Induced pluripotent stem cells are created in the laboratory and are a mix of adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Human embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated, meaning they have not yet formed into specialized cells like nerve cells. These cells are found in 3-5 day old embryos and can develop into any type of cell in the human body. Unfortunately, in this process the embryo is destroyed. Research has been conducted on all three types of stem cells and the recurring debate centers on embryonic stem cells: their effectiveness and the ethical and moral position of experimentation on embryos. Although there is great potential for the use of embryonic stem cells, it is surrounded by ethical and moral controversies that go hand in hand with the abortion debate. At the heart of this controversy is the age-old question of when life begins. Should embryos be allowed to be destroyed in an attempt to provide a cure for diseases that afflict millions of people, or should the embryo be protected as the beginning of a form of life? If science doesn't respect where life comes from, does it start to lose its focus on saving lives and improving quality of life? This question is at the heart of stem cell research that has been discussed by scientists around the world. This essay will focus on embryonic stem cells and three people's perspectives and research surrounding them. Some areas covered by the authors are alternative options for embryonic stem cell research and the religious views surrounding this study. Martin Bednar argues in his article “Endogenous tissue regeneration and restoration, maximizing our human potential: an ethical alternative to human embryonic stem cells” to move away from the study of embryonic stem cells and focus more on induced pluripotent stem cells. In contrast, Che Anuar Che Mohamad in his article “Stem Cell Research: Therapeutic Potentials and Ethical Issues from the Islamic Perspective” focuses on his opinion and research which he found to convey the message that embryonic stem cells are the type of stem cell most promising that has ever succeeded. been found. In the third Ph.D. articleMarinia Petrisor, a student entitled “Overview of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” uses scientific facts to support her opinion that embryonic stem cells are the most promising stem cell type. These three articles are similar in how they discuss the same topics related to stem cell research, however, their opinions on these topics are opposite. Both articles by Dr. Martin Bednar and Che Anuar Che Mohamad discuss the use of induced pluripotent stem cells. Martin Bednar discusses some statistics from previous clinical studies. It compared the number of clinical trials that used stem cells to the number of trials that used another form of treatment. It showed that clinical trials on stem cells have increased over the years, but those using embryonic stem cells have shown a lack of results. Studies using embryonic stem cells have been conducted in attempts to treat stroke, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and central nervous system damage. However, all clinical trials focus on restoring damage done to the central nervous system. Discussing these data, Bednar argues that the use of pluripotent stem cells is a more promising alternative to embryonic stem cells. It states: “Although rarely discussed, it is a medical fact that adult stem cells have cured dozens of diseases while no cure has ever been produced as a result of research using embryonic stem cells.” This statement is supported by the evidence from clinical studies provided by him. Che Anuar Che Mohamad argues that pluripotent stem cells are not a promising substitute for embryonic stem cells. He expresses this by highlighting some of the drawbacks associated with the use of pluripotent stem cells, such as the way they are produced and their limitations in reproducing the same results. It is interesting to see how the topic of pluripotent stem cells was used as a supporting factor in both of their arguments, despite having opposing points of view. It seems that one author focused on the potential benefits of this type of cell and the other focused more on the comparison with embryonic stem cells and their drawbacks. Both articles appear to have an all-or-nothing view on the use of embryonic stem cells. Another of the main focuses of all three articles is religion or faith. They all focus on discussing the morals of experimenting on an embryo. In Mohamad's article, he discusses what Islam, Judaism, and Christianity say about when life begins to support his argument that embryonic stem cells should be studied. He notes that the views of these three religions can be divided into two categories that create two opposing sides of this debate. Mohamad seems to go straight to the source when he identifies the views of these religions by examining the source scriptures and speaking with leaders of different faiths. In his article he cites scriptures of these religions. He concludes that in Judaism it is acceptable to conduct research on embryos because they see life beginning at 40 days after conception and therefore it is not considered a living being until 40 days. In Islam, he notes that their view is that life does not exist until approximately 120 days after conception. However, they believe that the embryo must be respected and carefully considered if research is to be conducted. Discusses the Christian view that life begins at fertilization and that in this faith it is unacceptable to conduct research on an embryo. Observing the opinions of. 2020.