The advancement of biomedical research has improved stem cell therapies immensely. There is a lot of unnecessary debate about the advantages and disadvantages of adult stem cell therapy versus embryonic stem cell therapy, which could be avoided if people were more knowledgeable of both therapies. Adult stem cell therapy is far superior to embryonic stem cell therapy because it avoids ethical concerns, the patients can use their own cells, and adult stem cells can be transformed into a pluripotent stage.
Initially, adult stem cell therapy is more desirable than embryonic stem cell therapy because it avoids all ethical concerns that embryonic stem cell therapy are prone to. In other words, the moral and ethical obligations hindering embryonic stem therapy are completely avoided with adult stem cells. For example, many people believe the embryo is a life that deserves to be protected and have many differing opinions on what constitutes the beginning of life. Michael West reports that a real human life does not begin until the embryo is multi-cellular after 14 days of development (West). His view, which emphasizes that the embryo does not deserve to protected, can cause extreme controversy in the scientific community mainly because many people see the belief that an embryo is not human until it has survived a certain time period, as morally corrupt. On the other hand, William Chesire asserts that from the moment of conception, embryos are distinct lives and it is unethical to destroy them (Chesire). Embryos are just as human as any person and should therefore not be subject to destruction, even to save others. Adult stem cells completely avoid the issue and debate over what constitutes the beginning of life since they never use cells from embryos.
In addition, other ethical concerns adult stem cell therapy avoids are the many religious objections to embryonic stem cell therapy regarding the sanctity of life. For instance, Chesire points out that the developing brain of an embryo has the capacity and capability to learn and feel emotion straight from conception (Chesire). The brain of an individual develops quickly and if embryos have the capacity to learn at any rate, they should definitely be considered a valued human life and it would be contradictory both religiously and spiritually to kill a life that is able to feel emotion. Also, Christopher Tollefsen claims that killing an embryo is basically murder and that the sanctity of human life should be regarded as more valuable than biomedical research (Tollefsen). The whole idea of destroying embryos completely violates many basic religious principles of purity and inviolableness of all human life, especially since research is not worth it if it requires lives to be killed. Hence, adult stem cell therapy is far superior to embryonic stem cell therapy because it does not open a door to any religious objection regarding the sanctity of life, as it never works to destroys lives, only to save them.