The dispute analyzed in this article is now part of a mass debate. The debate centers on whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used to provide forms of treatment for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and diabetes. The author of this article is Stephen Napier, he is in association with the Center for Bioethics in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The article was published in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy in 2009. In this article, Mr. Napier reviews past arguments on the current debate and gives the reader his position against the use of stem cells as a form of research and he further argues that position on the vulnerability of the fetus and whether it has moral values ​​equal to those of an adult person. At the beginning of the article, he gives an introduction to the strategies that the two opposing parties (Pro Life/Choice) bring to the table. Those who are for DESC generally say that an embryo is not a physical being and that brain transplantation could attest to this, but those who oppose it say that there is life inside each embryo and that it is morally wrong to continue the research ( Napier, 496-7). In the next section of his article, he begins to describe the research failures and the Belmont Report. It describes the Nazi experiments as well as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in Africa. Following these events, the United States passed the National Research Act of 1974 to protect the ethical principles of research. He then describes the Belmont Report and the three fundamental principles it sets out. The three they emphasize are respect for the person, beneficence and justice (Napier, 497). In the next session of his article, he talks about the vulnerability aspect of fetal embryos. He is in this s...... middle of paper...... as a vulnerable human subject and therefore worthy of protection (Napier, 499-500). In his final point on vulnerability, he explains why the embryo must be protected. If regulations are an indication of ethical consensus, then most people's moral intuition is that the more vulnerable a subject is, the more necessary it is to protect them (Napier, 501). X is vulnerable if , 503). He finds inconsistency in this argument put forward by critics and believes that even if the embryo is not capable of showing its personal abilities, it nevertheless possesses them. Works Cited Napier S. (2009) ARegulatory Argument Against Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy