Stem cell research is possibly the most controversial new medical treatment program to enter the scientific community since vaccination. It stirs up heated debates about the nature of life and when it begins, about the right to life of suffering sick people with chronic, debilitating illnesses versus the rights of unborn embryos. To really form an opinion about the topic, one must take a close, careful, and impartial look at stem cell research pros and cons.

On the pro side, stem cell research holds an enormous amount of potential to drastically change the lives of millions of people who are suffering and dying from as-yet incurable illnesses. Using undifferentiated cells from frozen embryos or from umbilical cord blood, scientists are able to grow new tissues to replace diseased tissues, or to implant these cells in the body of a suffering person to begin to grow and repair the diseased parts. For patients dealing with paralysis, multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson's disease, stem cells hold the promise of hope that their condition might not be a life sentence, that they may one day live a full and healthy life once again.

On the con side, stem cells are sometimes harvested from frozen human embryos. This brings into play a number of questions of morals and ethics, about whether life begins at conception, at birth, or at some point in between. There is no clear answer to this question, and the very asking of it seems to invite the weighing of one human life – the patient – against another – the embryo. A possible alternative to this quandary is the use of stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood, or from undifferentiated animal cells.

An additional ethical concern regarding stem cell research is the idea that stem cell treatments, because of the high level of technology involved, are prohibitively costly for all but a select few individuals, and many insurance companies decline to play for existing treatments. This raises moral questions about the rights of the rich versus the rights of the poor when it comes to quality medical care and health issues, which is, of course, a whole other debate.