f13.net

Well, I'll go with the National Institutes of Health as a great place to start.  Why? Because these are the people I beg for millions of dollars on an annual basis.  I think this is a reputable place to start and gives basics, policy, etc.

NIH Stem Cell Research Site (http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp)

I'll post more "topical sites" as they occur to me.  Many of the places that I frequent (Medscape for one) require registration or an annual fee.  I'll try to find some more mainstream sites when time allows.

I hope some of you find this helpful... the site also contains some further links (see other online resources for topics like cardiac applications, regenerative medicine, etc.)

http://bioethics.gov/

The President's Council on Bioethics.....we can talk about potential benefits and whatnot, but the aspect of the issue that makes it both political and controversial is the bioethics debate.

Because face it, if it weren't a political issue, it would not have been brought up in a political debate thread.

Bring the noise.
Cheers................

Nebu, can you also post some of the registration sites? Some of us have access to university subscriptions :)

As you wish!

Medscape (http://www.medscape.com/)

MedGenMed (http://www.medscape.com/mgmhome)

Free Medical Journals (http://www.freemedicaljournals.com/)

Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/)

Some of these require registration and others charge a fee.  I have links to some 100+ journals and services but thought these were as good a place to start as any.

I hope that helps.

Gracias.

Cool.  Does a full year registration unlock any races I can get cells from?

For investor types out there, here is one of the original companies in the area - their IP is around adult rather than embryonic stem cells:

http://www.geron.com/

Buyer beware :)

Doesn't the ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research require the concept of the sanctity of life? That being the case, how does a political party that supports the death penalty reconcile their obvious hypocrisy? You could argue that those put to death by government sponsored killing through either the death penalty or state sponsored first strikes in acts of war are people who have commited crimes. However, that does not stand up to the concept of original sin, posited by the major religions that are inspiring the politicians who seek their votes. Are we in fact suggesting that the literal interpretation of being born with original sin be determined by medical birth? If that it the case, then the only non-sinners are the foetuses prior to birth. Perhaps we need to enact laws that further penalise life that has been born in order to support life that remains unborn. I'm sure we can find some new 'ethical' doctors that will be willing to experiment on newly born babies instead of the aborted foetuses of, for example, rape victims.

Simply put, to call the present state position ethical is to make a mockery of the concept of ethics, just as it is laughable that none of the ministers who seek to legislate on these issues have significant philosophical or religious training. Even an armchair philosopher can recognise the dichotomy of the positions made by these politicians as those of deceitful idealogues most resembling Manichaeism.

We went over this in the other thread....for myself, it is the source of the embryos. I have a problem with manufacturing embryos specifically for research purposes. I'd be okay with using embryos salvaged from IVF clinics, provided we make sure there isn't de facto manufacturing taking place.

For others to my right, it is the idea that even embryos salvaged from IVF clinics are not ethical to use either.....their idea is that the embryo (which will die regardless) deserves the dignity of death without being experimented upon.

As the death penalty goes, I think you can respect the sanctity of life, and still execute people that do not share that same value, and are committed to ending human life....such as mass murderers, serial killers, terrorists, traitors, etc. It's a case of the government taking one life to protect the lives of others. The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....it's not as simple as the 6th commandment (i.e. Thou shalt not kill)....as particularly in the old testament, corporal and capital punishment are both advocated.

After all, look what capital punishment did for that Jesus guy.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Good summary DV.  It's a viewpoint that really perplexes me.  The most acceptable rationale I can come up with to understand it it is that this is a modern version of social Onanism.

Now I can't have an organ removed and donate it to science or an ill person - if it's still alive when detached it would be unethical to experiment upon it "hoping" for a clean transplant.

The frozen zygotes were already created knowing the odds of any of them becoming a human being were extremely slight.  I won't thrash this one again since it's already been raised, but it is an obvious inconsistency of how life should be valued.



This is pretty much my view.  I opposed the death penalty until DNA testing made it effective.  Now I'm an proponent of this as US policy, though not an especially enthusiastic one since our justice system still has plenty of abuse and flaw.

I've always opposed abortion but I don't consider it murder.  My opposition is more from the impact I see it has on all involved.  But I vociferous oppose banning abortion because I do accept it's not society's decision.  Society's role needs to be creating a world where abortion is almost never needed.

Where I conflict with political organizations typically comes down on their unerring tendency to oppose programs that would make abortion extremely rare.

But stem cell research to me is a no-brainer.  What particualy irritates me is that this law doesn't even accomplish the goal of upholding ethics.  All it does is (1) push influence over the research out of the grasp of the government, and (2) ensure that the benefits of the research most benefits non-American economies (our economy will bled off to those economies from whom we're buying the results).

Not all right minded folks believe the death penalty is the correct method.

From a Christian point of view, it is sin regardless of some Old Testament ideas.  Jesus taught to always forgive. (Doesn't mean you don't keep them locked up though.  Jesus didn't teach to always trust.  That is something entirely different.)
Killing babies before they are born is a sin.
Making babies outside of the natural reproductive system is a sin.
Using the byproducts of sin is a sin regardless of the good that may come of it.  The ends do not justify the means.

We can label each of these acts and try to catagorize them, but from God's point of view they are all sin.  All equally distasteful to Him according to the New Testament.

A Christian can accept the current laws because that is also something we are commanded to do, but we do not have to support them.  If given the chance, I would try to make those laws reflect the above, but in the end your sin is not my sin.  I sin enough on my own thanks.  Heck, just by accepting some medicines that were developed, unknown to me, by these types of methods or others I'd find deplorable I'm probably sinning.  If given the decision to either watch my child die or take the medicine, I'd choose the human thing to do and save her/him even if it was questionable in the eyes of God.  (Seems like choosing one sin for another.)

Like anyone, I have to take the bad with the good when I pick a candidate to vote for.  I just have to look for what I consider more of the good to outweigh the bad I see in the other one.

This is just from one Christian's view.  Take it as you will.

The hope in Biotechnology is that adult stem cells (extracted from an adult) can be used without having to resort to fetal tissue.

Stem cells exist in adults but in the past it was thought their usefulness would come nowhere close to those that were embryonic (obviously obtained from an embryo).  Evidence has mounted considerably that adult stem cells have great range of medical applications that once were thought to be only addressable with embryonic tissue.

Lot of questions remain of course - at a technical level.  Ethically, I hope that the use of adult stem cells will be more acceptable to those uncomfortable with the use of embryonic stem cells.

For babies today - there is also the option of storing stem cells from their umblical cord.  If such stem cells are in fact embyonic - not clear to me - this may address the ethical issue again since it comes from a person that actually did continue to develop into an adult.  These cells are meant to be retained for the possible use by the donor or famliy members.

Unlike the "other thread", there appears to be more reasoned discourse in this one. Having said that, we haven't reached page 2 yet.

I disagree with the notion that you are respecting the sanctity of life if you believe that you can impose the death penalty on those who do not share your views, and have themselves taken a life. That's very much a reflection of retributive justice, not unlike the concept of Shariah law as interpreted by rural ulema, that we are so quick to condemn. I understand retributive justice, though I don't agree with it, particularly as an alternative to transformative methods. What I don't understand is why somebody would advocate such a philosophy while simultaneously advocating that the sanctity of life must be respected as soon as the union of parental gametes takes place.

I do not profess to be an expert in this.  In fact, I'm in the process of becoming more educated since this thread was started.  After I made my post, I began to think that perhaps there are ways to use stem cells without mucking things up in the reproduction area.

If the cells can be collected in the manner you described, it starts to feel a bit more comfortable to me.  Better yet, it might be more comfortable with others too (since my one vote alone doesn't mean much.)  I do believe that route would be much more successful and should be the priority of the organizations involved.

Using matter that will be thrown away or are present in adults outside of their reproductive system does not seem to be all that bad to me.  The growing of organs is a far cry different from growing a human being so I do not see an issue there either.  My "line" is drawn on anything that prevents healthy matter to become a human or where humans are created by men.

That "line" may seem to have been drawn out of my Christian beliefs, but there are more earthly reasons as well.  I don't want to make this post any longer than it already is (too long,) but it mostly has to do with human greed and conflict with the value of human life.

I still do not feel I know enough about this.  I'll have to spend some time reading some of the links above.  If anyone see something in my post that is incorrect from a stem cell science point of view, please call me on it.

*Edited* Spelling is hard in the morning.

Normally, but not neccessarily.  To pull up the concepts of the other discussion, moral relavism doesn't require justification for any moral stance.  On the other hand, people usually don't make arbitrary decisions on their moral relavistic views, and instead base them on concepts such as the (1) sanctity of life, and (2) that life begins at conception.  Moral absolutism may try to argue from point 1, but they would be somewhat mistaken; they are likely misunderstanding that their moralities derrive (unles they are really realavistic) from God/Allah/The Talking Teacup, who needs no justification other than "because I said so".  Point 2 wouldn't be a moral concept, but rather a definition used to come to a conclusion.



It may be hypocritical, and is only such if the argument is self-contradictory, for example if the moral view were argued from a position of the "sanctity of life".  There may be a different basis used in the determination of what is moral, in which case the stance may or may not be hypocritical.



Our governmental concept of ethics is based on the will of the people, not a logical study.  The government cannot legally base its laws entirely off moral absolutism, since that would require religion.  As a result, we use something more akin to social relavism, which boils down to "whatever the people will accept".  I think pointing fingers at the government regarding the schizophrenic way it makes decisions is to miss the point, since that's how it's designed to make decisions.

That would be because the Bible does not accept the concept of sanctity of life.

An argument that I hear quite often references itself back to the Manhatten Project (and earlier):

Just because we can doesn't always mean we should.[/i]  

I'm not saying that I agree with this notion, I'm just reminding you that it is out there.  Personally, I think that the knowledge that this research produces could turn out some wonderful ideas and directions in medicine.  Sadly, there are always the minority few that will look for applications of the research for personal gain.  These people will often test ethical boundaries in the process.

"Just because you can jump off a cliff, doesn't mean you should".  The problem with either agreement or disagreement with such broad statements as the one you referenced is that they cover so many applications.  The implied meaning however, is that some technologies have social negatives that we as a society are not equipped to deal with.  In the case of atomic weapons, you're talking about technology that for the first time had the potential application to end all Human life, and that power could rest in a single individual.

Imagine how hurt people are over 9/11.  Remember the shock and horror people felt.  We lost around 3,000 people that day.  A military-grade nuclear weapon could, if detonated at the same location, have cost a thousand times that number.  If we were a purely rational society, you would think that there would be more concern over this.  

Genetics raises a whole new set of issues that I again am not certain we're paying enough attention to.  Scientists would probably largely disagree with me, but they have an agenda to push as well.  Then you have people pushing to receive healthcare benefits, and people looking to get profits from the same, etc etc.  There's not a lot of incentive left to worry about our culture or our fate.

First rule of book reviews: read it.

"'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again" - John Edwards.

This is why politics suck.

1.  Thanks for the Bible comment.  I didn't want to be the only one.
2.  Wow, that is an amazing quote.  Just wow. (Not saying Republicans don't say stupid things....just wow.)

Wait a few days, newspapers will start their headlines stating, "Bush killed superman"

I think you are trying to say "relativisim".  Maybe it's nitpicky, but it's hard enough to follow your argument already.


Another argument against is the slippery slope.  I haven't read the other thread, so I don't know if it's been covered, but the other day when I was thinking about the issue, it occurred to me that a real concern could be that if we start using embryonic stem cells, even from non-viable embryos, who is to say that five years from now when it's good and off the radar, someone doesn't start mass-producing human embryos for sale.

If stem cells really are the magic bullet they have been touted to be, they will be really valuable.  And most high-value items eventually get exploited by the unprincipled.

That sums it up well. Thanks.



One of the many reasons.  This is a statement that I hope Edwards regrets for the rest of his career.  I mean... what a stupid fucking thing to say.  Not only in content, but context.  A good man (Reeve) dies and it is already being used for political folly.  I'm apalled.

Cant...resist....

No the headline will read 'Kerry is the Second coming!'

That's the road I didn't want to go down in my post, but you hit it on the head anyway.  We humans will take this to the least common denominator...cold hard cash regardless of how many potential humans are at stake.

While many bodily tissues are sold now, they aren't quite the same thing.  I've broke it down in my tiny head like this:

- Eggs:  They can't form themselves into humans by themselves no matter what environment you put them in.
- Sperm:  Same thing as eggs.
- Embryos:  Given the right conditions and nutrients, this WILL grow into a human and only a human.  Not a dog or a cat or a mouse, but a human will be created.  It is a process that will take place on its own because the first step was taken (infusing the sperm with the egg.)  Now you just keep it safe, warm, and fed.  This last part is no different than a baby that is born either.  A baby will die if it is not kept safe, warm, and fed too, so that cannot be a distinction between life and not life.

Of course, now it comes down to whether you think an embryo is just a sac of tissue or a life.  I choose the latter and that is without any religious explanations at all.  That's how I see it.

That's no minor step and in the context of this discussion this process does not take place on its own.  Not like dropping a seed in the ground and watching for rain.

And that's probably where a lot of people misunderstand what's involved.  I think most people are visualizing fetuses, which are human as we know it - they have organs, nervous system, etc.

The embryos created in fertility clinics are just so much protoplasm sloshing around in a test tube and frozen into popsicles.  It takes some hard heroic science for that blob to have a chance at life.  The blob isn't even legally considered an unborn child until it's in the womb.

And yes someday that blob could be recognizable as a human being, but the transition stage between zygote and embryo is not a human.  No organs, no nerves, etc.

Personally I'd love a metaphysical argument on when the soul enters the body.  Something tells me it's not at the moment of initial cell division.

Not every comedian has a medical degree.

Yes, go read it.  I'll repeat it; the Bible does not respect or accept the sanctity of life.  It only respects God's will, whose motive at times was something akin to the sanctity of life.  However, it should be beyond doubt that this is not absolute, and some of the stories illustrate this directly.

1) God let himself die
2) Sodom and Gomorrah
3) Ordering Abraham to sacrifice his only son
4) God is omnipotent, yet introduced death as a result of original sin
5) Several OT battles where God ordered cities slaughtered to the last man, woman and child
6) God endorsed capital punnishment
7) The plagues of Egypt
8) Most of the book of Revelations
9) And Job
10) God killing someone for pulling out during intercourse, instead of getting his new wife pregnant.

Then there's the whole flood thing, where he effectively slaughtered the entire world's population.  Or, depending on your translation, a significant portion of it.

The only Biblical moral objective is to obay God's will.  If that will is to protect a life, then the moral imperitive is to protect it; if that will is to rip apart someone limb from limp and dance with their entrails as a head dress, then anything less is sinful.  That will has been described as far more protective of life than not, but there is no absolute imperitive for the sanctity of life.

We're back to the original point.  If we accept that it is generally, and for our purposes, wrong to kill a Human, we still have to define what a Human is.  If you define it as "they have organs, nervous system, etc" - what about people with artificial organs or on life support?  No longer Human?  



To really screw up most conservative arguments - what about twins?  Are there two souls in that first embryotic cell?  If not, what happens to arguments that rely on something metaphysical (religious, etc)?

As far as I know there is only one consistant trait in any religion's description of the soul.  That trait is immortality.  So my question is what difference does it make if embryos have souls if those souls are by definition unkillable?

Again, just because it is hard to get an embryo to the state of a fetus (yes, I know what the difference is,) does not make it any less important than a fetus.  Like I said, it is hard to keep a baby alive too.  That is no small feat either.  It takes a lot of time, money, nurturing, personal effort, etc.  I have a hard time stating something is wrong just because it is difficult.  In my mind, a human life is worth the effort if you choose to start it.

As I also said, I am not even bringing the whole "when is there a soul" argument.  I am making the argument that a soul WILL be introduced to this embryo if the effort is extended to it to keep it alive and grow.  Why is something that less valuable just because it isn't to that one divine stage that somehow makes it a human or not a human?

Regardless of religion, I feel it is our responsiblities as humans to finish the job of reproduction once we start that process.  That has nothing to do with God's will, but my sense of morality.  It just so happens to coincide with His will as far as I see it.

As for the Bible post above, please read more of the New Testament.  All but one of your examples are from the Old Testament.  Revelations is from the New, but it is the end of times after all.  There will be winners and there will be losers.  That's what most religions are based on.

The stories from the Old are about people that were trying to do everything they desperately could do to be "right" in God's eyes.  The whole point of the New is that those things are not necessary since Jesus came to do that for everyone himself.  Jesus was all about preserving the sanctity of life.

True, God is to be first, but the very next focus is on people.  Those are Jesus' new two commandments.  Love God and love people.  All the rest will come through those two things.

While you are right to say there were some cold things done in God's name during the Old days, you are totally ignoring the rest of the book.  

This is probably a subject that should be taken to PM's or to another thread.  It could go on forever.

It would require that there be some value attached to the soul living in a mortal body, and that the diety (God, Allah, Zeus, or whatever) has hence decreed life important enough to live.  Or, in the case of Buddhist traditions, the difference is the karmic consequences to your own soul in the next life.  For Buddhism, karmic gain is the end.  For other religions, service to the diety who wills such is the end.  Polytheistic religions usually have some element of personal amusement or other gain earned from the decisions of the deities.  Monotheistic religions usually revolve around a motive by the deity to form a relationship of some sort with the creation.  Presumably, that would imply life affects the nature of the relationship.

Wow. I'm impressed. I would have been much better off in this thread instead of the others.



Because, according to any religion, whether in the Buddhist or Christian sense, etc., the soul's "sole" purpose on earth is growth. The reason for that immortality is to learn something. Cutting the opportunity short is the percieved injustice here, I think. Not "Sanctity of Life" necessarily...I'm not even sure what that means really.

Victims of capital punishment, on the other hand, have at least been given their chance, but in the end, prove they haven't learned a thing (or perhaps they learn a bit too late, I guess).

I typically shy away from these discussions b/c they general don't lead to people changing their minds but the above comment just made me raise my eyebrows.

It's no more hypocritical to be in a party that supports the death penalty and is opposed to abortion as it is to be in one that opposes the death penalty and supports the right to abortion.  If your looking for logic and consistency in political discussions you're fooling yourself.   Politics has very little to do with logic and well rounded philosophy, to think otherwise is beyond naive.  And I'm sure you know this, so beyond simply taking shots at conservatives or people with religous views, why bother to state your point this way?

Like it or not, hearing the phrase "embryonic stem cells" immediately draws a highly emotional "ick" factor reaction from a large segment of the population.  Once that happens you've lost your opportunity to enlighten people and make good arguments.

You want more reasonable public discourse, figure out a way to suddenly to make a largely ignorant and apathetic population suddenly become educated and motivated enough to engage in discussion.  Just don't hold your breath while you attempt it.

Xilren

You are correct here.  Sometimes people try to argue that because a fetus cannot survive "on its own", it has no rights to life.  This is a false conclusion; a healthy adult Human cannot survive on its own, either.  It requires restrictions on gravity, food, air, water, socialization, and so forth.  If we accept that removing a Human from environs that allow for life, and put them into environs that do not, it is murder and immoral.  Placing a Human in a hostile environment is a test for morality, not a test for Humanity.  The question comes back to whether the embryo is Human.



Because Humanity is the test by which morality is judged.  Chemically and biologically, we literally are what we eat.  You are the biochemical sum of the food and water you've ingested over your life.  If your argument is that something which is not yet Human, but may be, must be protected as Human - then you are under moral obligation to protect every item of food and water as though it were Human.  If you tweak it so that your argument is that moral rulings apply to things which are not yet Human, but will be, in attempt to differentiate food from an embryo (!), you're no better off; there's no guarantee that the embryo will reach whatever arbitrary point in development you've set for Humanity, so you wouldn't be able to apply morality to the embryo at all.  Join DV in using them as Cheerio garnish.



I understand I may be somewhat rusty, but I am fairly certain that Christ's death (item #1) was NT, as was your reference to Revelations (#7).  Further, the concept of Original Sin was reaffirmed directly, as was all of the OT (every reference to "scripture" is OT references exclusively, as the NT had not been written).  Further realize that when we say "Bible", it includes OT and NT.

But, I understand your request for more NT references.  You may wish to read where God killed a man for failure to donate all his property to the new church.  And then his wife.  In fact that story addresses, again, and specifically, the issue of who is higher: a moral standard such as sanctity of life, or God's will.

Of course, there won't be as many references in the NT; the NT revolves around Christ's life (the gospels), and then Paul's letters, which delt with people's faith.  Acts is the only book, aside from Revelations, which is "active".  However, going through the letters, you should find plenty of examples where Paul tells this or that group God thinks they're being assholes (and at one point, that everyone's an asshole); and every time the only out is not some moral truism, but following God's will.  You may be unfamiliar with early church history, where there were factions galore, each spouting what was or wasn't moral.  Paul's, and by extention the NT and the Bible, response was to say that they're wrong.  God, being God, can do whatever the hell he wants, and he's the focus.  If he's pro-life, then you're pro-life.  If he says chocoembrypuffss are the new breakfast food of the day, then eat up.

That last bit isn't irrelevant.  The Bible cites many times where God breaks what would otherwise be considered a moral law.  Can't cherry pick your theology.

Here is an positive reason why we at least need to examine ebmryonic stem cell research:

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-10-07-1

Posted simply because it is imprtant for people to realise that there is more than theory involved here.

I'm not going to say this argument is without merit or substance, but consider why we don't charge police or soldiers with murder for all acts of killing in the line of duty, nor do we charge people who kill in self defense. Why don't we execute all convicted murderers?

The concept at play is the sanctity of **innocent** life. Obviously, the judgment of guilt or innocence is not determined the same way by a secular society as it is by an omnipotent deity.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Great discusions here.



The problem I have with this argument is that food is used for much more than creating life.  That is not food's only natural purpose.  Before all of our science, the embryo's purpose is finite.  It has only one purpose and strives to be that which is a human life.

The creation of an embryo is not an accident.  It takes a specific action to make it so I have a hard time treating it as just something that is sitting around that we can do what we want with it (like eating like cereal...strange notion that is.)



You got me on a couple of those, but I still stick to what I said.  I do not have the answers to all of the strange things that were done (reference killing the man that didn't donate his full tilthe...yes that story troubles me too.)

Yes, Paul says we are pretty much assholes, but that is the whole point of Christianity.  None of us can live up to God's expectations.  That's why Jesus died for us.  I don't believe Paul says we should all just die because we suck, however.  Our lives are still important or why would this whole thing called life even happen?  We are all born with a purpose.  It is up to us to find it.

You are right.  The focus is on God.  But, God's focus is always on us, so it is cyclical.  I still believe his intent is for us to have full lives so that we can find our purpose in serving Him.

I'm trying not to cherry pick my theology.  I've come to my conclusion based on the quoted words of Jesus, which basically states that every life is worthwhile and born with a purpose.  The rest I accept on faith.  That's the tricky part.

I think I understand what you are getting at here.  Is it worthwhile when it could save the unborns' life?  

It still isn't that straight forward for me.  I believe that an embryo is just as much a life as a fetus.  How many embryos must be used to save one fetus?  How many embryos must be used to let one man walk?  Is it really worth it?

If you say embryos are just things, then your answer would be yes.  My answer is no.

Saving babies' lives is a very, very good thing.

But.

Taking the position of the cold-hearted pragmatist, is it valid to question whether we are supposed to be repairing defective hearts in the womb? A small percentage of fetuses will have defective hearts. Maybe it's supposed to be that way.

This planet is not designed to accomodate an environment where all human beings are guaranteed to be born and live 100 years. Some die in the womb, some die at birth, some die before their natural time. Our planet has finite resources, and to put it in stark terms, we need a certain percentage of people to die so we can accomodate the new ones that make it through to birth.

Curing every disease? Ensuring every embryo that is conceived is born? Can Earth handle that many people?

At some point we need to stop ensuring that every potential life is born and start considering making things better for the lives that are already here.

Earth can handle twice as many human beings as there are now, even under the pressures and abuse of industrialism. The real threat of overpopulation would come from something like, say...World Peace. But that in turn, would probably negate "world peace" sooner or later..

Anyways, sorry for the derail :)

At that point we switch to plan B, which is a combination of 2 classic sci fi films:

(http://www.sadgeezer.com/html/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/news/LogansRun.jpg)
(http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1000/192505.1000.A.jpg)

I understand 30 year olds go best with white wine and just a dash of Charleton Heston.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

EDIT: original pics came out too big, and one wouldn't link. Preview button is your friend.

I'd say they are humans with a couple of chunks of metal helping the rest of their body live.  I'm not sure how an artificial heart compares to cells dividing, something no more organized into "Human" than the yeast that pisses out my beer.

The yeast cell may find my definition of Valuable Life questionable. But since it can't get past the eat, excrete, die stage we'll probably never know.  Which by the way is true for the vast majority of zygotes created.

Of course we define human in structural terms.  Whether we call it spirit or electrochemical it's pretty clear there has to be enough foundation there to hit the tipping point we call Human.  (if we ever do find scientific evidence of spirit/soul I'll bet even money it relies heavily on such basic systems as the Nervous system.)

Anything else brings us to full practice of Ahimsa, a moral/ethical code that taken to its logical conclusion means we can't even eat dirt or breathe open air.  I'm Pasu-Svabhava enough that I don't concern myself with anything that isn't obviously human to the unaided eye.

You are actually describing moral relativism, not social relativism, which is quite different.

Good argument, because we are getting to the issue I have been trying to draw out. It is in fact unreasonable for a secular society's government to argue that they represent an ethical position, because it is not possible for the politicians of a democracy to represent themselves as having ethical imprimatur. We reach the crux of the problem - not that there are death sentences at the same time as there is a determination to to protect zygotes, but that it is presented as ethically determined. To present an ethical argument, it must be tested by the science of morailty, not by poll.

The creation of Wheaties isn't an accident, either.



Wages of sin are death.  I was pointing out a few times that God decided to collect on back pay.



Which is what I hit on; the point for most monotheistic beliefs is a relationship between the diety and the created.  As for the purpose of the individually created, it could well be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as an example to others.

You tried to define Humanity in terms of organs, which would mean someone who lacked natural organs was not Human.  It's a case of you meaning what you say, but not saying what you mean.



If it weren't for artificial death, most zygoes would form an oppinion on the subject.  So do you feel that it is moral to kill someone, as long as you can do so before they can form an oppinion on the matter?



Of course there's a tipping point.  The argument is over where that point lies.  If you define the point over the ownership of organs, transplantees or mechanical replacements become problematic.  If you define it by intellectual capacity, there could be some negativity towards the mentally retarded.  And maybe infants or near vegetables aren't human in your moral framework - long as you agree to that when you're defining human.

Moral relativism is morality relative to the self.  Social (cultural) relativism is morality based on social standards, not individuals within that society, which is what I was addressing.  Democratic governments base their morals off social relativism, since one individual generally cannot get enough foothold to exert their will.  Dictatorships, however, sometimes can.



Untrue; social relativism, moral relativism, and moral absolutism are all ethical positions, all of which a democratic government can take.  Generally, it's impractical to take any aside from the first.  A democratic society may try to be Christian, Jewish, etc, but it's likely there will be those who object and push for different legislation.



I'm not sure it's a problem, beyond misrepresentation.  What is moral is often passed by politicians as an intrinsic property, which implies moral absolutism; however, that is normally not what the politician is pushing for.  Long as it is passed as oppinion, it is either social or moral relativism, and fairly plainly marked as such.

Actually I did say what I mean - I referred to basic systems both in my initial post and my reply to your question and just happened to mention organs.  You disregard my true focus on base systems.



Well considering I've said as much several times yeah I'd have to agree again.  But that is because I'm forcing myself to breeze over your choice of words.  Your use of "someone" in this context is particularly hard to ignore but I'm trying.  "Some thing" would have been a more relevant choice.

But I'll accept your choice of words for a second: as I've posted elsewhere I have zero problem with killing certain people, and whatever "karmic burden" is involved I'm happy to take the chance it's offset by the good it brings other people who have not intentionally violated the life principle.  I'll say as much before &generic_deity and take my lumps.

Zygotes don't die an artificial death - death seems to be a pretty natural outcome of life.  Bearing in mind our current context is fertilization clinics, these zygotes are actually artificial life.  When I'm seedling my vegetables in hydroponics in anticipation of planting them a few months later I am through the use of equipment and man-made chemicals artificially creating life that is more organized and demonstrating actual base systemics than the zygotes we're discussing.

Not surprisingly the equipment and man-made chemicals are a bit more complex and heroic science in the average fertility clinic.  Clinics are in fact factory assembly lines of artificial life.

"Ed's womb was a rocky place where my seed could find no purchase."
-- H.I. "Hi" McDonnough

The conclusion of your (however hypothetical) point is that we could never artificially create zygotes because of the certainty the great majority would die due to failed fertilization.  Let alone the other poor ice cubes that get tossed out because one of their genetic siblings was already successfully implanted and carried to term.

I'm trying to picture the hue and cry of the world if we decided fertility clinics were immoral and must be shutdown.  Or even if the law mandated that no more than one zygote could be created at a time and the law permitted malpractice if it died.



Except I don't.  Organs form after the base systems start - organs are extensions of the base systems.  Base systems bring complexity of which organ systems are the tangible result.



I'll again try to breeze over your choice of words and assume this is the impersonal "you".

Without Humanity defined based on systemic complexity, assuming Humanity and morality truly apply at the time of conception... we're back to my original post that I can't donate organs or allow a tumor to be excised and destroyed.  We'd certainly have to prohibit such things by doctors since their actions would be immoral.  Fertility clinics would be just another form of abortion clinic.

So I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation of Humanity.  Stem cell research is completely moral in my mind - in fact I find it immoral that it would be limited.  (While I admire Bush's political deftness with his compromise, I found his reasoning tortured and convoluted.)

I see it as no different than excising a tumor or keeping a placenta/cord for experimentation.  After all it is quite conceivable that reproductive cloning could be done with any tissue so I'm back to facing these proposed conundrums.

Humanity as a dividing cell is incredibly problematic at every dimension of the issue.  The literal practice of Ahimsa simply is unsustainable.

(And as unacceptable as I personally find abortion to be I continue to support a woman's right to abortion.  I would prefer it be capped at eight week barring threat to the mother's life but at the same time I appreciate that many woman do not realize they are pregnant before that point. I let it stand.)

Now that the thread has entered the realm of having to explain to one another the simple fact that human embryos are incapable of murder, and thus not eligible for the death penalty, then you only prove Haemish right - this thread, having survived to a 2nd page, demands the requisite retardo-lock.

Only if you die before you accept Jesus.  That is the only unforgivable sin.  You only get back pay if you try to do it on your own (without Jesus.)  Then you have to account for all your sins.

You get all of your precious life to understand that.  The trouble is, you never know exactly how long of a life you have.  The bible teaches that God DOES want you to love him.  That is what you were created for.  He gives you a chance to appreciate what he gave you.  If you don't take that chance, you go to hell.  That's the point of Christianity.  It isn't what you do.  It is what you believe.  The things you do will reflect what you believe.

Well, that's the Protestant view of Christianity, anyway.

Bruce

So then you are for forcing all fertility clinic embryos to be implanted regardless of the woman’s desire and brought to full term? Or is it ok to toss out the ones we don't use int the process of in vitro fertilization? If it's ok to toss them, well, why not try to - with the parents consent - try to use them to further our knowledge?

I think the problem is that some people are extrapolating  a scenario in which millions of embryos are artificially created, put in blenders, and then farmed out to solve all of our societal ills – generally by poor women as they are paid for their ovum. Quite frankly, I do not see that scenario coming to pass. Rather, the main idea is that we establish a good stock of immortalized lines which can be utilized for research, and then – hopefully – we harvest the patients stem cells to correct whatever defect we are attempting to address.

In short, the objections seem to be to be morally derived from a fictional scenario (‘How many embryos must be used to let one man walk?’) that no one is proposing to come to pass.

You are right, I have absolutely zero problem with using unwanted IVF embryos for research purposes, because it strikes me as a far greater gift to humanity than throwing them out. Unless, naturally, your support my facetious scenario above.

As to what I was ‘getting at’ I was simply pointing out that this stuff is not ‘hypothetical’ in any way. There are demonstrable applications to this research right now. Any ‘assumed point’ of my post you derived completely on your own.

It's not just their view.  It is how the Bible describes it though, and that is what we are talking about.

Well, I seem to be miscommunicating.  I do not like the idea of making any embryos outside of the body.  Whether that is to be used for fertilization clinics is beside the point.  Now my point just moves to how many embryos have to be discarded to make one viable one for this couple that can't naturally have a baby.  So, no, I wouldn't force implanting embryos since I don't want them made in the first place.  In fact, I wouldn't force anyone to do anything.  That's beyond my power and I wouldn't want that power anyway.

I don't like the idea of creating embryos.  You don't mind it.  I think that is where you and I depart on this subject.  Anything from there on is pointless to debate.  You'll vote one way, I'll vote another.

If they can work on collecting the cells from anything other than embyros, I'd certainly be inclined to accept it.  They already have ways of getting it from some sources I'm fine with.  Like I said in my original post, I'm for them using cells to help people, just not embryonic stem cells.

Of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen or is happening.  I'm just one person stating how I feel on the subject.  The world will go on regardless.

My pencil will never be able to make a decision; using "some thing" would not be appropriate.  I was refering to a person, hence "someone".  Your agreement with my argument means that a significant amount of legally defined murders were moral acts.  Again, I was and am referring to people, not zygotes (whose "someone" status is in question).



Their (zygotes used in stem cell research) death is caused directly by man, which is defined as artificial.



They were fertilized artificially.  The behavior of the zygote is natural.  Artificial life would require that everything after fertilization is also under man's control and design.



Except you did, even if you didn't mean to.  If you revise "Humanity" to be determined by "base systems", and that these systems are expressly NOT an organ(s), then what are these systems?



Except on this point, there isn't much discussion; an embryo is an independant parasitic entity.  Whether it fits our moral qualifications for human life or not may be up for debate, but the idea that it is "part of me" (the mother) is wrong.  If it meets the moral qualifications for Human, killing it is wrong; if not, killing it is no worse than killing a mosquito.

If you again redefine humanity to be based on total creature complexity (as opposed to "base systems"), then you're left at picking an extremely arbitrary complexity level to determine Humanity.  With that comes difficulty in determining when that point occurs, since "complexity" isn't something that is readily measurable.

That's one interpretation of the Bible.  The Catholic view is notably different from the one you described (works vs. faith).

Bruce

While you're not directing this at me, I'm going to toss something in here.  I don't know how I'd vote on the subject, which is why I laughed when someone said here I was pushing my view.   I want a satisfactory answer, which means a rational one.  The problem I constantly run into is that the decision is either "I'm against because it's immoral", or "I'm for because I don't care too much about moral concerns to find objection".  But, both of these views break down on a number of fronts; misunderstanding of the religion upon which moral absolutism is based, misunderstanding of logical consequence of some moral relativism stances (or religious ones, but most discussions along those lines don't even reach this point because of fundamental flaws in understanding of the religion itself), or lack of despire to be introspective enough to describe one's real motive, instead of redefining it every other paragraph.

I disagree.  I think it is stated quite clearly in the Bible.  You are right.  Catholics view it differently.  I grew up Catholic until, you know, I actually read and studied (study) the Bible.  This is an old argument and one that will go nowhere so I'll just stop with "I disagree."

Good points.  While I'm confortable with my religious view on the matter, I definately would like to have a logical one that doesn't require any leaps of faith too.

Let me know if you come up with that explanation that is all logic and requires no religion.  I'm looking for it myself.  For now, I'll stick with my opinion (and all the rhetoric I've based it on.)

Sure but then guess what - everything is arbitrary.  We're talking human perception after all.  And since that's the only perception that matters you'll just have to live with the fact my arbitrary line in the sand is no more or less certain than whatever you actually believe to be the line.

My definition of Human yields me something that is already self-aware and budding into sentience.  Your definition gets me the basic definition of All Life that exists (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm).  I have a hard time accepting everything living is Human just because .2% of it's DNA overlaps with mine (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092615.htm).

There are two facets to this topic, what is material and what is abstract.  Morality, ethics, spirituality - these are abstract so we've shied away from discussing these, particularly the last.  That leaves us with the material.

Total creature complexity does seems to be highly correlated to self-awareness and sentience.  Humans are recognizable because not only are the self-aware and sentient but their complex enough to have those traits.

Gould for example might have argued whether high complexity necessarily meant better evolved to environment, but nevertheless complexity is the key factor to self-awareness.

An aside to Dren - I appreciate your fully laying out your views on conception.  I respect your view and will defend your right to express and act on it.  And I'll vociferously oppose anything you asserted as being made public policy. :-)

Personman, actually you'd be surprised by what I think should be public policy (well, on other topics anyway.)  What I believe is right and wrong doesn't completely equate to what I think should be public policy.  While it would be dandy to have everyone think the way I do, I do not believe public policy will achieve that.  In fact, trying to *force* people into believing something is wrong, counterproductive, and actually cause more harm in some situations.

The only public policy I'm proposing in this case is to leave embryonic stem cell science alone.  Find different ways.  They are there, just not as easy.  I did delve into the act of making embryos in general, but let's stick to one topic at a time.  I already have a headache from this one. =)

We'll no doubt make headway in those other areas.

In the meantime the research continues.  The current US policy just means they gave up control over the process and it will be corporate execs making the moral decisions.

Most likely.  There is way too much money to be had here.  Somebody will grab it one way or the other.

Since there's a lot of casting about for a logical definition of what is and isn't an independent human life, without any overly arbitrary lines drawn, I'll give it a shot.

1) The definition of life is well-trodden ground.  I'll assume going forward that we all know what "life" is and that it's a very large category.

2) Any organism whose DNA matches the human genome qualifies as "human".  Bacteria qualify as "life", but not "human", because their genomes aren't close enough matches.  The rigorous practical test for a "match" would require developing the DNA into a sexually mature organism and seeing if it could breed with a human; however, I think we can agree that any cell produced by a human, and any zygote produced by the union of human egg and a human sperm, is genetically human.

3) Any cell or organ that is integrated into a larger multicellular creature is not "independent".  In general, a group of functioning interconnected cells with the same exact DNA that depend on each other to maintain vital functions can be considered as belonging to the same creature.  The collection of genetically identical cells therefore comprises a single "life".

Therefore, an egg is human life, but it is part of a larger human creature, so it doesn't merit consideration as an independent human life.  Ditto for sperm - being produced by, dependent on, and genetically identical to a particular human, they are extensions of that human's body rather than independent creatures.

A fertilized zygote, however, is no longer considered a part of either parent's body, because it has a new and unique DNA combination that sets it apart as a new creature.  It is dependent on its mother's body, but the mother's body is not dependent on it - this makes it a parasite, but since it is not an integral part of the host body, it is still an independent creature, and, matching the definitions of "human" and "life", an independent human life.


Maybe it's just because I was raised Catholic, but this seems logically sound and practically self-evident to me.

Are all independent human lives inherently valuable enough for us to be morally concerned about, though?  Or do different human lives have different values, to the point where some are infinitely valuable and some are disposable?  That's the real question.

Mainstream dictionaries usually give about five definitions for "human".  One matches your interpretation.  The rest are the material and abstract perspectives.  So technically you're in bounds but nothing complete enough to help fix whether stem cell research is supportable.

"Parasite" fails for a number of reasons.  The social definition clearly fails.  The scientific definition is a little more arguable but defines zygotes as symbiotics.  All parasites are symbiotes but not all symbiotes are parasites.  The difference is that the host derives benefit from the organism.  Parasites by formal definition do not benefit the host.

Can you get us closer to a fix on stem cell research?

We've beat up the concept of the relative value of human lives.  Adults are easy.  It's blobs of dividing cells with no clear complexity other than hormonal telegrams that are tough.

From a strictly moral perspective, I'd say I more or less agree with DarkVengeance.  An embryo that's going to die anyway seems like fair game no matter how you look at it.  It's not that different from using a dead adult as an organ donor - we don't have a lot of moral obligation to dead humans, just live ones.  Creating an embryo for the sole purpose of destroying it, however, is pretty morally questionable, because now the process introduces human deaths that would never have otherwise happened.

From a legal perspective, though?  Well, lots of things are legal that are immoral, and lots of things are illegal that aren't immoral.  So even assuming that we can prove with certainty that stem cell research is immoral on an absolute scale, I don't think morality is necessarily a good basis for drafting laws.  Laws exist primarily to protect the state and keep it functioning (which includes good quality of life for its citizens).

The question, then, isn't "innocent or guilty".  Those are moral values.  The question is "citizen or not"?

Do embryos count as "citizens"?  Well, they don't contribute to the state much, that's for sure.  Killing them off doesn't hurt anyone else's freedoms or quality of life any.  So there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason for the law to protect them.

Then again, under that logic, parents should be free to kill their newborns - nobody but the parents is likely to care if a newborn bites the dust, so if they're happy with that, what's the harm?  Ditto for the homeless - nobody would really care if they were gone, as long as you didn't leave a mess on the sidewalk when you killed them.  Mental incompetents?  Criminals?  Fuhgeddaboutit.


Frankly, I can't really come up with a reason why killing anything that doesn't contribute to my society should be illegal under my society's rules.  I try not to think about it too hard, though.

I haven't defined humanity, but only used what you (and other) posters have given as definitions.  My deductions are based on your claims, so if you don't like it, don't look at me.

Just wanted to give everyone a site that if your in science you use daily.

www.pubmed.com

This is much more beneficial for those who are on academic campus or can setup a proxy to a campus. Others can read the abstracts but otherwise the journal articles will not be accessible. Please note these are journal articles and can be a.) Technical and b.) Boring. Those who are truly interested should enjoy. I suggest starting off with a search for, Science Stem Cell Possibilities Review, read the second review to give your self an idea. As for everything else proceed as you were, just wanted to give people a link to the real science being done everyday.

Geez guys - you seem to be mixing faith and science - and disagreeing - this cannot be realistically resolved.

The bottom line for me is if someone is against stem cell research for reasons pertaining to religion that is where it ends.  You can't argue against this - but you can try get around it.

As I posted before, the industry's best response to this is adult stem cell research.  It seems far less offensive to the religous beliefs of others - but does give us a different set of technical challenges to make this work as a therapeutic.

I personally have no problem with embryonic stem cell research - because a significant segment of our electorate do - this technology is not viable.  You can argue until you're blue in the face why these people are 'wrong" or you can get off your ass and find a solution in a less offensive technology.

I just came across this in a pharmaceutical news service that I subscribe to.  Though I'd share.

Fundamentally I think this is where the question pivots.  We're all trying to dance around the elephant in the living room: theological doctrine.  We speak to it using code, "ethics" and "morality" as if a blob of dividing cells is intrinsically more human than any cultivated living tissue whose DNA map reads like a human baby.

In the referenced article the experts supporting the existing policy are a Republican senator and a conservative Catholic.  The one opposed is scientifically trained and certified in biology and ethics.  I think it framed the issue well and showed no amount of scientific definition of the beginning of "Humaness" will make headway with those nursing an inner acolyte.

I'm not dismissing the theological side - in fact just the opposite.  I don't see how we'll make any progress until we bring doctrine and science into the conversation.

I disagree.  While it is true that many who are against the destruction of embryos have that view as a result of theology, and many who are for their scientific utilization do not share that theology, it's also the case that there are people who claim to be religious yet see no problem with the utilization of embryos, and there are secular people who find logical fault with arbitrary definitions of humanity.

I also feel that both the scientific and religious communities have agendas to push.  Scientists as a group (there are exceptions) are very liberal and tend to want to do things without regard for ethics if there is knowledge to be gained.  Scientists are paid for discovering things, not for holding back due to ethics issues.  Religious groups, on the other hand, have a conservative doctrine that is the foundation of their culture and structure that frequently puts them against motions such as this.  Since they commonly hold the spiritual more important than the physical, the motive for scientific gain is often not as strong.

In other words, "because a scientist wants to" isn't reason to do something, but neither is "because God said so" enough reason for a diverse society to not do something.  Better arguments from both sides need to be made.

Nebu -

I think this was at talked about early on in the Bush administration several years ago.

I have never been involved in stem cell research - but I have had some contact with Geron.  Anyway, I understood the concern to be that there were not many existing stem cell lines - and there were some "problems" with many of the existing lines (not just at Geron - but in general).

And scratch them deep enough on what is NOT an arbitrary definition and suddenly the inner acolyte rears its head.

Living tissue with "human" DNA doesn't tell us a thing about "humanity".  We're left with squishy interpretations that at their root reflect our respective culture's religious heritage.

 

You have got to be fucking kidding me.  You're being sarcastic and this is comedy... it's got to be.

Dr. Frankenstein is not the norm.

How many national conferences on science have you even attended? How many world class scientists do you even know... I don't mean had a class with, I mean KNOW? EACH AND EVERY scientist that I know well in this field or on the fringe of stem cell research is VERY aware of the potential ethical pitfalls.  The "exceptions" tend to be those that are closer to what you have described.  I'll add they they are a vast minority among scientists and certainly not the norm.  I partially blame the media for your observations. The exceptions often get the air time while the majority go about thier daily work.  As I've written before, most science you read about in newspapers or see on television is just plain overblown.

As for claiming that scientists are liberal, I'd like to see what your basis for this is.  I know quite a few scientists across many different scientific disciplines and we seem equally split in our political views.  Matter of fact, I'd say that the MD's that I know who are working in or around the stem cell area of research tend to be more on the conservative end of the political spectrum.  Granted, my sample set is only from a few major research universities and the Mayo Clinic. I still have some sample to draw from.  



Most scientists I know make half of what they could in other fields or even in the private sector.  Science isn't about being paid to do something.  It's a life commitment to answer questions that you have burning inside of you.  Noone works 80-100h a week for as little as what I get paid to blindly discover things without concern for ethics and morality.  We do it precisely because of our strong ethics and morality.  

Second, let's use a little common sense here... if what you say were true, we wouldn't even be discussing stem cell research.  People would just be doing it.  It is partially because scientists have raised many of the same ethical concerns as other sectors of the population that the debate rages to the point that it has.  Scientists are self-policing to a greater degree than almost any other field.

My opinion is that the scientific community wants to do the right thing for the right reasons when it comes to this area of research.  You know, I can't honestly say the same for most politicians.  Bush and Kerry have chosen their sides of this issue, in part, because they want to maintain the support of their constituency.  Scientists aren't elected.  Tenured scientists have even less of a reason to speak out on such ethical issues yet remain some of the most active voices on the topic.  Science is published in peer-reviewed journals for the same reasons.  Left to the media, we'd all be investing in cold fusion.  Scientists shot that one down.  



You saved yourself with this one.  I agree.

Religion doesn't need to enter into it when you're trying to define what's human.  I've asked several times for people to define humanity, and there have so far been some somewhat scary holes in their decision that if narrowly defined would exclude (based on their definition) certain handicapped individuals, or if broadly defined would include inanimate matter.

Part of the logical delima is the cause.  What is it that causes "humanity"?  If you define it as something very broad, such as overall complexity, then you run into the problem of causality.  One author on fuzzy logic defined the problem like this; if we define a baby who is born to be fully human, and the instant a sperm/egg are fused as non-human, then the time period between them will be some curve.  Every point along curve represents some value >0 and <1.  Part of the problem is not knowing at this stage what the curve looks like, but equally, fuzzy logic would say that it doesn't matter.  Even a liberal application of ethics would require one to say that it is somewhat immoral to destroy something that were partly human.  It would also argue that using embryos for research may be moral, but you'd have to go into more detail as to the weights of each side.  

However, logic also requires that the burden of proof be made on the one attempting to make change; that is, it's known at this stage that there is some degree of immorality in the destruction of an embryo, even though that degree may be all but trivial.  If the proposition is made to destroy that embryo, regardless of purpose (research, etc), the burden of proof is on that motion.  If a convincing case could not be made that the moral gains outweigh the loss, then the default action must be to not destroy an embryo for research.

There's one argument, which I paraphrased from one author who used similar tactics to discredit religion.  Or more correctly certain religious tenants held by, among other groups, western Christians.  



I suppose instead of thinking about the issue, your retort would be that he's a closet Christian who attacks Christian fundamentals, and therefore must be wrong (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem)?

I did not say it was.



Not sure how you'd define world class or "know", but I'd guesstimate a dozen or two, depending on your criteria.  I don't do research professionally, so my only personal contact is socially.  And admittedly, aside from family members who are in the medical field, none of them with a biology background.  Include myself and most of my coworkers in that category if "computer science" fits your definition of scientist.  Either way, good job on ad hominum.



I wasn't speaking to awareness.  I fully understand that there are national/international conventions on scientific ethics (held by and for scientists), not to mention inclusion of ethics as sidebars and so forth.  Perhaps I should have used a better word, but when I mean regard, I mean treat with respect, or as something held in regard.  Instead, my feeling is that ethics are often an issue that needs to be delt with; a problem to be identified, solved and gotten around.  This generates much awareness, but not neccessarily respect.  I'll note that my experience with people from "soft" sciences don't quite line up this way.



Personal experience.  Also because the trend is that highly educated individuals are more liberal.



Putting the image of starving scientists on hold for a moment, your argument still leaves open the point that most scientists aren't going to try to answer questions they feel are immoral to answer.  It also means that if a scientist has a burning question that many people have an objection to, he'll still do it.  You've only replaced one motive for another.



Burning questions aren't moral or immoral.  In your view, scientists do what they do because they want to learn.  More often than not, people build a personal morality around what they want, and don't conform themselves to what they learn about morality.  

And you don't work 100h a week.  I know this, because you have time to post here.  



You should know, being a medical research scientists, that other scientists already have initiated stem cell research on human embryos.  I believe the first successful incident was Dr. Thompson at UW.  Aside from that, there is and has been research towards abortions, IVF, and so forth - all procedures, research, and technologies that would be highly immoral if embryos were considered human.  Either this is an indication that scientists as a body have already decided that it were morally acceptable, and the discussion by scientists is effectively over except as one of review, or scientists are unable to police their own research.  In either case they certainly are just doing it.

It's ad hominem.

The rest isn't worth the time to respond to.  You call others out on their knee-jerk responses but fail to admit your own.  Your call partner.

And offered nothing in return.  If you're fishing to to clarify your own thoughts fine - say as much, take a swing at it yourself, and drop the condescension.  Otherwise layoff the sophistry.

I did say as much, page 2. Everything before and since in my arguments has been aimed at taking proposed clarifications and stating why there is issue with it.  I don't think there's an issue with a view having logical fault; I do think it's more than a little foolish to continue arguing down that line after it's been shown to be at fault.  Call it condescension if you like, but I think it's appropriate when the opposing side willingly puts itself into the role of idiot.  That's different from just making a mistake or being wrong and going "oh, I get it now".

Far as taking a swing at it myself, alright.  I have never before (the last few years) found fault with stem cell research, IVF procedures, "the morning after pill", etc.  I'm wavering now, and the reason is that I find the slippery slope and similar arguments compelling.  Pick any point that you feel someone is really a someOne, and ask - were they a person the day before?  Yes.  The day before that?  Yes.  If you define personhood as relating to the individual's mental ability, overall complexity, or some similar criteria, you'll hit a wall.  Continue back and you'll likely hit a point to where you say "maybe, not sure".  What you're looking at stops looking like what you'd define a person as, but you can't really draw a line and say "here it is, here it isn't."  Go back even further, and you'll certainly hit a point where you answer "no", and at worst that is the moment of conception.  But maybe it's a bit later.  If it's later, there is some difficulty in specifying exactly when it occurs, or where a particular zygote/embryo is along that timeline.  

One of the thoughts in the international scientific community for example (and it is certainly contested within that community), holds that 14 days is an appropriate marker.  Before that date, the zygote maintains the possibility of twinning, which means you cannot think of it as A person or something that has any identity.  The consequences of this line of thinking would be that stem cell research, IVF, and "morning after" pills are all acceptable, but abortions are not since women can't test as pregnant until after the 14 days are up.

Weighed against this issue is that, even if the zygote were considered a person, is the notion that to a point Human life is expendable.  For example, if I joined the military and fled the field of combat, I could be executed.  The rationale here is that if soldiers act in a way to save their own skin, they endanger the rest of the unit.  The only punnishment that is sufficient to combat the individual's motive of self preservation is to only give them one possible option of staying alive; to go through the enemy.  What it boils down to is a situation where individual rights are forcefully removed for the good of the society.  A similar argument (they are not equivalent) could be laid at the feet of zygotes, even if they were considered Human.