When the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, there was little debate about bioethical issues because science and technology were not as advanced as today. Abortion, contraception and stem cell research are very recent things, so it would be impossible to say that there is absolutely no doubt that they would favor any position regarding these topics. But there are some clues that can help us know what there opinion would probably be. If all men are created equal, then no human can be worth more than other. They also added that every human has basic rights which can't be taken away. We must ask ourselves a very important question: When does human life start? 

 Looking at this question from a scientific point of view the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person concludes:    Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.”                                                                                                           Dr Maureen Condic Ph.D, B.A.    

     There are hundreds of quotes from doctors that could be used here but to make things simpler I shall keep things as short as possible. As you see, it is a myth that when human life starts depends on morality or religion. Now that we know that embryos and fetuses are human beings, we should think: Is it right to sacrifice an innocent and dependent person involuntarily so that we can cure someone? I think most people would be unwilling to give their life so that their neighbor could have better health. Embryos are destroyed during scientific research so that some diseases can be cured.

     But the worst part is that human embryos are being cloned so that scientists can have more of them. Creating humans to destroy them and making profit of it must be one of the worst immoral acts possible. Embryos have become a commodity or another material for science to test on. Science must have its limits. It should co exist with morality other wise science becomes a tool for evil rather than a tool for good. Whenever conservatives put limits on science they say we oppose it. But all we are trying to do is to keep science ethical even if that means prohibiting certain research.

   President Obama said that he would "make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." But that is exactly what he is doing: ignoring the fact that the Constitution guarantees a right to life for humans (including embryos), and deciding based on his liberal belief that those who are born are more valuable than those who aren't. I wonder whether he doesn't know he was an embryo or that he feels safe from being destroyed now that he is born.  

 To sum up, human life starts at conception, period. Destroying life to cure life is absurd. Obama should encourage other types of research where embryos aren't destroyed and ban those which do. Everything has a limit, science does to. Otherwise it becomes a method of destruction of the human race. And I think most Americans would agree with me, Mr President.

Please read my blog: http://killianlansingh.blogspot.com/