Question

In a newspaper editorial, a writer states that research on human embryonic stem cells is valuable and worthwhile. Which describes the most common argument against the writer's statement?A.In a scientific argument, some physicians argue that stem cells are not likely to be part of any beneficial application or medical treatment.B.In an economic argument, some experts argue that the benefits of stem cells are not worth the high cost of developing and implementing the research.C.In a scientific argument, some researchers argue that the goals of stem cell research would be easier to achieve by other means.D.In an ethical argument, some people argue that human embryonic cells should be protected.E.In a philosophical argument, some people argue that stem cell therapy would change the personality or identity of the person receiving it.

Answer 1

The most common argument against the value and worthiness of human embryonic stem cell research is the ethical argument that advocates for the protection of human embryos.

Step-by-step explanation:

The most common argument against the statement that research on human embryonic stem cells is valuable and worthwhile is the ethical argument. Some people argue that human embryonic cells should be protected due to the destruction of embryos that is necessary to isolate embryonic stem cells. This argument raises considerable ethical and legal questions regarding the use of human embryos in research.

Answer 2

In my experience the answer would be:

"In an ethical argument, some people argue that human embryonic cells should be protected."

Because as with abortion, the general idea is that stem cells or embryos have life and must be protected. Therefore, there are many people against stem cell therapies. However, in the scientific community, stem cells are not considered conscious organisms.