I wholeheartedly agree. A few cells can save millions of lives if they don't get implanted in a womb and be born in a shit world?
Works for me. I mean, COME ON, those cells are about as concious as a fly larva, perhaps even less. I'd say the pros outbeat the cons.

Anyone who isn't a civil terrorist should be pro-embrionic stem cell research. (hey you see what I did there, I called all the conservative assholes who try to ruin ppl's lives terrorists) The fact that its taken from aborted fetuses is separate from the research itself. its like saying that we should arrest a doctor for helping an injured criminal.

basically, fight against abortion if you want, but not against harvesting of stem cells which is basically a post-mortem operation...assuming I know anything about this procedure (which i dont but...)

Well, I don't think the foetus is exactly a "potential life", seeing as how it is on its way to becoming a full fledged living, breathing human being. I personally think that human life begins at conception, and seeing as how it is a human foetus, taking its life or body without its consent for our sceintific or medical consumption seems to me to be morally wrong. To me, these aren't just mindless cells, because twenty some years down the road this could be another person like myself. Seeing as how the extraction of the stem cells kills the embryo, I don't think this is a valid way to get stem cells. If someone wants to give up their stem cells for research, I'm all for that, but I really don't think that abortions or using an aborted embro/foetus our own purposes afterwards is moral, despite the fact that it could improve the quality of life for other people. I just don't think using spare humans in any stage of development "for parts" is ever going to be morally acceptable to me, because of that empathetic dimension that I feel whittles it down to something like "take one life to save/improve another".

If they decide to genetically engineer synthetic embryonic stem cells in the future so that naturally concieved (ie human sperm+human egg) embryoes are not destroyed, I am not yet sure how I would feel about that.

The problem with what you are talking about though is that these embryonic stem cells aren't being taken from aborted fetuses, but rather fertilized eggs that are not going to be used in artificial insemination.  Scientists have already said that they could get enough lines for research just from the fertilized eggs that are going to be disposed of in most clinics to continue their research.

I do not see an ethical problem with using extra eggs that are not going to be implanted in a woman for this research.  When it all boils down to it, you're talking about the "lives" of a few thousand non beings vs a few already living humans.

The problem with what you are talking about though is that these embryonic stem cells aren't being taken from aborted fetuses, but rather fertilized eggs that are not going to be used in artificial insemination.  Scientists have already said that they could get enough lines for research just from the fertilized eggs that are going to be disposed of in most clinics to continue their research.

I do not see an ethical problem with using extra eggs that are not going to be implanted in a woman for this research.  What it all boils down to is that you're talking about the "lives" of a few thousand non beings vs a few billion already living humans.

They could have been humans like you and me though, is the part that vexes me. That potential was there, and we manufactured it away.

human featus cannot concent because they arent even sentient creatures.   it doesnt even matter because stem cell research generally uses fertilized eggs, which arent even as complex as human featuses. your reasoning is essentially magical, like a child. I.E. there is some sort of  mystical human essence surrounding conception and therefore a fertilized egg is in the same moral stand than a full fledged human.

edit: jesus christ you are 22 years old

I agree with the above comments (except for calling all conservatives assholes and terrorists).

dude you should agree with that part most of all.

Since when did it become a matter of opinion wheather or not living cells are alive? Anyways, I don' t think we should be doing these things to what are essentially (pre)human beings, despite the possible benefit to already out-and-about people.

Since when did it become a matter of opinion wheather or not living cells are alive? Anyways, I don' t think we should be doing these things to what are essentially (pre)human beings, despite the possible benefit to already out-and-about people.

living cells are alive, however they're not sentient. if each living cell counted as a separate being than each human would be comprised of millions of different organisms.

there's a reason eggs are called eggs and not chicken!

Well, these aren't just eggs, they are soon-to-be-grown peoples. If it were just the egg, I'd not have a problem with it. Sperm + egg = human life just like flour + water = paste.

Flour != paste.
water != paste.
Flour + water = paste.

Also, they can be counted as separate and independent organisms, because the embryo WOULD be in a period of gestation if not for our manufacture of its arrested development and eventual consumption, beginning to develop  its own independent body systems since the moment of conception thanks to those marvelous stem cells that some covet so enviously.

Also, sentience as a factor towards the morality of affecting a life (potential or real) is something that is very dubious. Babies aren't sentient, and you yourself are probably not sentient until the age of 3, and not completely aware of your own sentience until at least the age of 10. Because sentience CAN develop in these embryos if they are allowed gestation (and eventual birth) is where consent becomes a factor.

Of course, asking "Could we have had your stem cells when you were in that dish in the lab," doesn't do much good, but as I see it, it is the only ethical way to go about the process of extracing them. So basically, the development of time travel (or lack thereof) is the only thing slowing down completely morally sound embryonic stem cell research.

EDIT: BUT WAIT that would create a time paradox wherein the subject would cease to exist in the past if he gave his consent in the future, and that means he would cease to exist in the future, so how could he have given consent? A paradox of that magnatude might rip apart the space-time continuum, destroying all life and matter and existence as we know it. So there you have it. You can have guilt-free embryonic stem cells or NOT unmake the universe. Its your choice.

Also, they can be counted as separate and independent organisms, because the embryo WOULD be in a period of gestation if not for our manufacture of its arrested development and eventual consumption, beginning to develop  its own independent body systems since the moment of conception thanks to those marvelous stem cells that some covet so enviously.

Also, sentience as a factor towards the morality of affecting a life (potential or real) is something that is very dubious. Babies aren't sentient, and you yourself are probably not sentient until the age of 3, and not completely aware of your own sentience until at least the age of 10. Because sentience CAN develop in these embryos if they are allowed gestation (and eventual birth) is where consent becomes a factor.

Of course, asking "Could we have had your stem cells when you were in that dish in the lab," doesn't do much good, but as I see it, it is the only ethical way to go about the process of extracing them. So basically, the development of time travel (or lack thereof) is the only thing slowing down completely morally sound embryonic stem cell research.

all of this applies to a chicken egg! it WOULD be a chicken if allowed to grow. i mean honestly saying something WILL be something else is a pretty horrible argument. it's not sentient at the time of it's termination, and it's not self sustainable at the time of it's termination.

Joan Dixie is 5 years old, has no formal education, no trade qualifications and no prior on-site training or experience. Over her lifetime she has ammassed several dresses, dolls and toy animals in gift form.

Professor Hutchins is a tenured lecturer on physics at Cambridge University. He owns 2 houses, once of which he sublets, and is the owner of a large space in downtown london which he rents to a pop art gallery. He has a total of eight cars including some very pricey classics.

A bus load of children has a nearly negligible earning potential, countered only by the bus driver. The loss of a bus load of children would be far less than a bus load of prisoners.

Sally Wench is quite an attractive young lady. Krista Saunders is the same age, but is only average looking.

Greg Polker is a master of counterstrike and world of warcraft. He actively avoids social interactions. Matt Jilkis is always hanging out with friends and is quite saddened when left alone.

Joan Dixie is 5 years old, has no formal education, no trade qualifications and no prior on-site training or experience. Over her lifetime she has ammassed several dresses, dolls and toy animals in gift form.

Professor Hutchins is a tenured lecturer on physics at Cambridge University. He owns 2 houses, once of which he sublets, and is the owner of a large space in downtown london which he rents to a pop art gallery. He has a total of eight cars including some very pricey classics.

A bus load of children has a nearly negligible earning potential, countered only by the bus driver. The loss of a bus load of children would be far less than a bus load of prisoners.

Sally Wench is quite an attractive young lady. Krista Saunders is the same age, but is only average looking.

Greg Polker is a master of counterstrike and world of warcraft. He actively avoids social interactions. Matt Jilkis is always hanging out with friends and is quite saddened when left alone.

i see what you did there

Since when did it become a matter of opinion wheather or not living cells are alive? Anyways, I don' t think we should be doing these things to what are essentially (pre)human beings, despite the possible benefit to already out-and-about people.

a lot of substances can constitute essentially as "pre-human" because molecules get cycled around. there is a possibility the carbon molecules of your dead gramps could end up in the toe of a human being. your position doesnt makes absolutely any sense at all, and as i said before, your reasoning is essentially magical.


anyway when did god say that the soul starts at conception. why is such a position so popular between catholics and christians. i dont even remember seeing the bible condemning things like abortion.