Presidential Debate thread

[HaemishM]

Hell, if fetus brains yielded some potentially life-saving material, I'd be all for harvesting the brains of aborted fetuses....but I wouldn't go advocating that we impregnate women for the sole purpose of producing that material.

Not only would I advocate the impregnation of women for the purpose of producing that material, I'd allow companies to PAY such women to do that. Shit, it's research, not much different than the way we pay human guinea pigs to test potentially harmful drugs. There's have to be a shitton of liability clauses and contracts and stiff penalties for fucking around in the areas that shouldn't be fucked around in.

But then, I'm also not opposed to the concept of human cloning, or of using human cloning technology to replace lost limbs and organs.

Yes, there are some serious moral, legal and ethical issues involved in every one of those processes. I'm not going to try to pretend there aren't, nor am I going to pretend it will be easy to enact the legislation and regulation required to do this kind of thing right.

But sticking our fingers in our ears and going "LALALA NOT MORAL" when Pandora's Box is open isn't going to make the shit go away. And I'd much rather the U.S. do it before some other, possibly less scrupulous country or regime gets ahold of it.

[Roac]

Each one of those eggs is fertilized with the intention of creating a living human being.
...
It is done with the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the embryo WILL BE destroyed.
...
If you cannot see a difference, then subtlety is absolutely beyond you.

I know you like to flame, but seriously.  Stop and think.  The process requires that multiple eggs be fertilized, whih a near certainty that there will be more than one, and that only one will be used in fertilization.  When the procedure is carried out, it is carried out with the intent that multiple zygotes will come into being, one will be used in fertilization, and all the rest WILL BE destroyed.

If that's your moral view, and you're happy with it, fine.  I'm not trying to change your view on the matter, and I haven't even told you what mine is.  If you feel there is a moral difference between creating a batch of zygotes purely for scientific purposes, and creating a batch of zygotes with one intended for pregnancy and the rest purely for scentific purposes, that's fine.  It sounds like you find using zygotes for scientific use immoral, helping a barren couple conceive a child moral, and the moral outweighs the immoral on some internal scale.

And I say that you hold to "the ends justify the means", at least in some aspect, because I doubt you've worked out a ratio that is morally acceptable.  What if instead of 2-10 embryos being created in this process, there were 50?  100?  1000?  Either you've worked out what you feel the worth of a life is, or you hold that one life is worth any cost.

So I'm curious.  Is that one life worth any cost, or have you come up with what you feel it's equivalent "immoral weight" is?

[Calantus]

it's an unfortunate side effect, not the core intention.

Yes, if you augment your first claim with the moral justification of "the ends justify the means", it's a moral act and logically consistant.

Each one of those eggs is fertilized with the intention of creating a living human being. It is done with the knowledge that the embryo may later be destroyed.

Compare that to embryos created for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.....they are not created with the intent of creating a living human being. It is done with the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the embryo WILL BE destroyed.

If you cannot see a difference, then subtlety is absolutely beyond you.

Eh, that's a bunk argument anyway. Let me give an example of why:

1) Having babies and killing each one that isn't a boy.

VS.

2) Having babies and killing each one because it beats watching daytime TV.

In scenario 1: Each one of those babies is made with the intention of creating a living human being who will go on to live. It is done with the knowledge that the baby may later be destroyed.

In scenario 2: They are not created with the intent of creating a living human being who will go on to live. It is done with the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the baby WILL BE destroyed.

Which one is more moral?

To me, there is 1 issue:

1) When does an embryo become a human being?

If we decide that they are human as soon as fertalized then we sure as HELL should not be killing them (and should stop IVF ASAP as it would be a crime unlike any other before it). If we decide that they are not human yet them there is no problem, would there be a problem if it was just sperm or nail clippings? No? Then there's no problem using embryos if they are not human. If we are undecided... I'd say it's better to lean on the side of not killing thousands of pre-babies every year.

Personally I'm undecided on the "when does an embryo become human" issue. But I'm definately in favour of not doing anything until we decide. Quite frankly, and I know this isn't a popular oppinion, it isn't really important if we never again find a new cure for current deseases/afflictions. We should TRY, but it's not the end of the world if we don't succeed. People die of alot of things, I think the more important thing to do is lessen deaths at human hands, than prevent death at nature's hands.

I would, however, respect a politician who chose A side. Going into it halfhearted is just plain wrong. Either you're killing thousands of babies, or you're unnecessarily delaying the saving of lives. It's not noble to kill a few less thousand might-be-humans a year while delaying life-saving research for kinda-sorta-maybe-idrathernotdecidekthxbye ethical reasons.

[Roac]

See, now *THAT* deals with "do the ends justify the means?". Roac, I hope you're taking notes here. There's a quiz at the end.

So?  You say that like I'm attacking your beliefs.  I'm not - just your argument.  If that's his morality, that's his morality, and it is (on its own) rational.

[Roac]

I don't get why taking cells that are eventually discarded naturally from the body (through nocturnal emissions for sperm, through menstruation for eggs) and combining them to assist in groundbreaking medical research is a bad thing.

People attach some sort of significance to what happens to that combination after a few months.  Something about being more than the sum of its parts.  Go figure.

[Roac]

People die of alot of things, I think the more important thing to do is lessen deaths at human hands, than prevent death at nature's hands.

Well put.

I would, however, respect a politician who chose A side. Going into it halfhearted is just plain wrong. Either you're killing thousands of babies, or you're unnecessarily delaying the saving of lives.

And agian.

[Nebu]

Stem cell research:

I advise all of you to become familiar with the potential use of stem cells as well as the knowledge that stem cell research produces before coming to any conclusions.  As a scientist I have my own beliefs but am in no way wanting to persuade anyone for either camp.  

Educate yourself on the topic.  Once you do, the first thing you'll notice is how little politicians really know about the science behind the research.  The second thing you'll find is that most are only versed in the talking points that sway voters.  

This might make an interesting thread in its own right.  

As an aside, carefully consider any source credibility when reading about science.  I have had some of my work reported in the media and can tell you with absolute certainty that few journalists are qualified to report science accurately.  Further, for the few that are qualified it seems their editors are in the business of selling their medium rather than accurate reporting.  I cannot think of a single scientific advance (in my field) in the last 20 years that was accurately reported in the mainstream media without the addition of some sensationalist slant.

[ahoythematey]

As a de facto scientist, I'm rather curious how you view Popular Science as a laymans source of such things, since I myself am rather fond of the magazine.

Erm, sorry about the thread derail, back to peen waving.

[HaemishM]

Nebu, please enlighten us. Start a new thread with some links and/or boiled down layman's talk about the real benefits of stem cell research.

Remember, edumacate your damn self. Or edumacate us too.

[Nebu]

Nebu, please enlighten us. Start a new thread with some links and/or boiled down layman's talk about the real benefits of stem cell research.

Remember, edumacate your damn self. Or edumacate us too.

I'll try to get something up this evening (meetings all afternoon) or tomorrow morning.  I'll do my best to find things that are unbiased... though I think to some degree it's impossible.  We like things because they appeal to our sensibility... so I may pick some that tend toward my bias subconsciously.  

This is why I encourage you to look for your own information sources.

As for Popular Science, I honestly haven't read it often enough to make an informed opinion.  I read Science, Nature, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association, and the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) for my broad look at current science.

[Margalis]

I'm not talking about the original statement; I'm talking about your statement.

Still waiting.

Is this intentional humor or not?

I already pointed out that your lack of context around your comments had me confused. I honestly have no idea which of my statements you are talking about.

I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore.

[Dark Vengeance]

I know you like to flame, but seriously.  Stop and thinkThe process requires that multiple eggs be fertilized, whih a near certainty that there will be more than one, and that only one will be used in fertilization.  When the procedure is carried out, it is carried out with the intent that multiple zygotes will come into being, one will be used in fertilization, and all the rest WILL BE destroyed.

I'll simplify it for those keeping score at home.

What chance does each individual embryo created at a fertility clinic have of becoming a human being? I'll give you a hint.... it is >0.

What chance does each individual embryo created for the sole purpose of acquiring stem cells have of becoming a human being? 0.

Bonus points for those that recognized the difference between 0 and >0 a few pages ago. The > makes all the moral and ethical difference in the world, IMO.

At this point, you aren't even disputing my position.....you're disputing whether or not my logic is consistent. My position is that every single human embryo that we create intentionally should have some opportunity, no matter how minor or how small, at becoming a human being. And my position is that to create a human embryo without the intent of giving it that opportunity is something I find morally and ethically objectionable.

The fact that I have to spell it out says that yes, indeed, the subtlety of the position is lost on you.

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

[WayAbvPar]

I don't get why taking cells that are eventually discarded naturally from the body (through nocturnal emissions for sperm, through menstruation for eggs) and combining them to assist in groundbreaking medical research is a bad thing.

People attach some sort of significance to what happens to that combination after a few months.  Something about being more than the sum of its parts.  Go figure.

If it is created in a laboratory, it is never going to become bigger than the sum of it parts. It is just a combination of cells, some of which are extremely promising for medical researchers.

It isn't the creation of a slave race of children from which organs and the like are harvested (although that might be a good master villain plot for a movie); it is simply utilizing all the tools available instead of handcuffing progress.

[Zaphkiel]

What chance does each individual embryo created at a fertility clinic have of becoming a human being? I'll give you a hint.... it is >0.

What chance does each individual embryo created for the sole purpose of acquiring stem cells have of becoming a human being? 0.

Bonus points for those that recognized the difference between 0 and >0 a few pages ago. The > makes all the moral and ethical difference in the world, IMO.

    So, once the parents have the child or children they want, and don't want any more, what happens to the remaining embryos?  When they make the decision to not use the remaining ones, are they guilty of putting those embryos into the "0" category?  Is that an ethical thing to do?  It's the same line.  Is crossing it one way alright, and another way bad?   Is it ok for the parents to make that decision?  If it is, why isn't it also up to them what happens to the embryos afterwards?  If it's not, why allow the procedure at all?

[Samwise]

It isn't the creation of a slave race of children from which organs and the like are harvested (although that might be a good master villain plot for a movie); it is simply utilizing all the tools available instead of handcuffing progress.

Bear in mind when saying things like that: those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.  Again, the fact that you're "utilizing all the tools available" doesn't void moral arguments against you, nor is "progress" justification for anything and everything.

What I think Roac was driving at was: if we can agree that after a few years that clump of cells has become something more morally significant than a sperm and an egg (that is to say, you agree that it's immoral to kill a healthy three year old child), who's to say that it's not something more after only a few months?  Or days?  Or seconds?  Or right at conception?  Where do you draw the line?

Obviously, no two people will agree on where the line is to be drawn, but it shouldn't be hard to agree that there is a line somewhere.  It's a simple exercise in logic, then, to say that if human life is of intrinsic and inestimable value,then if there is even a possibility that a newly created embryo is a human life, we should err on the side of not treating it as a fingernail clipping.

Mind you, one might not agree that it's immoral to sacrifice one human life in order to save another.  But as previously quoted, there are all sorts of horrific things that can be justified once you decide that lives have finite values that can be balanced in equations and that the end product of those equations justifies the means used to balance them.

[Dark Vengeance]

So, once the parents have the child or children they want, and don't want any more, what happens to the remaining embryos?  When they make the decision to not use the remaining ones, are they guilty of putting those embryos into the "0" category?  Is that an ethical thing to do?  It's the same line.  Is crossing it one way alright, and another way bad?   Is it ok for the parents to make that decision?  If it is, why isn't it also up to them what happens to the embryos afterwards?  If it's not, why allow the procedure at all?

The point is that they had a chance. Everyone deserves a chance, not everyone gets to succeed. Don't make me quote Braveheart on this one.

They are human cells. They are alive. Do not mistake that as saying that they are viable human beings. That is certainly a hotly contested point of debate. As to whether destroying the leftover embryos is ethical....well, that's quickly going to the place where "when exactly does life begin" and that pesky sixth commandment (i.e. thou shalt not kill) become the end-all be-all. If you believe it is the same line, and crossing it is the same, no matter how you do it....well, enjoy life as a pacifist vegan pro-lifer I guess.

I personally believe the parents should have the choice about what is done with their discarded embryos, and that they should be donated to science...not sold, whether by the clinic or the parents. And to those that missed it...I'm okay with embryonic research on discarded fertility clinic embryos, so long as it is under the proper moral and ethical conditions. Those conditions do not exist at this time....thus my objection to it as things stand today.

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

[Calantus]

If 20 embryos are created for an IVF couple, what are the chances that every single one is going to grow into a child? 0

There is no moral difference in making 20 embryos with the intention of having one survive, and the making of 20 embryos with the intention of having none survive. Either way you are creating embryos that you know will not grow into children. Either way embryos will be destroyed. I don't think there is any moral difference in destroying 1 less embryo, nor do I feel there is a moral difference in intent as BOTH positions must acknowledge they are creating embryos that WILL be destroyed. It doesn't matter that one may survive. Not at all.

The only question, and I mean the ONLY question, is whether or not it is morally acceptable to create embryos that will be destroyed. "They are being destroyed anyway" is not a valid argument because they didn't just fall from the sky. If we decide that destroying embros is wrong, then the creation of it has to stop, completely. That includes IVF embryos. So there wont be any embryos that are just going to be destroyed and thus alleviate the moral issue, because the creation of them would be just as morally wrong anyway.

I honestly don't understand how people could support IVF and condemn stem cell research. They both involve the artificial creation of embryos, and they both involve the creation of embryos that will be destroyed. There is no difference. None.

Either we decide the destruction of embryos is morally a'ok, and thus both can be used. Or we decide that destroying embryos is morally wrong and thus they both become morally wrong. Neither is worth the murder of thousands of innocent pre-babies if they are human, and both are worth it if they are not human. No need to decide if one is nobler than the other.

I get the feeling I am repeating myself, so I will stop this post now. :P

[Samwise]

"They are being destroyed anyway" is not a valid argument because they didn't just fall from the sky. If we decide that destroying embros is wrong, then the creation of it has to stop, completely. That includes IVF embryos.

Very logical.  That's in fact why many people (the Catholic church for sure, and probably a good number of other Christian sects) are opposed to IVF in general, despite its noble purpose.  Some might call them wackos, but at least they're consistent.

[Dark Vengeance]

If 20 embryos are created for an IVF couple, what are the chances that every single one is going to grow into a child? 0

Again, missing my position entirely...and you're misrepresenting it to try and turn it into an inconsistency.

You want to take the probability of ALL embryos becoming a human being....that's entirely different than saying each one has an opportunity. Since you can't find an inconsistency in my position, apparently your solution is to try fabricating one. If you have a problem with IVF, that's fine.....but you're attacking my position by arguing against something I never said.

When the process begins, each of those embryos has a chance at becoming a human being....a greater chance, I might add, than they'd have had without the existence of IVF. Don't forget why people go there in the first place.

Everyone deserves a chance, not everyone is meant to succeed. If you are going to create an embryo intentionally, and never give it any statistical chance (no matter how small) of becoming a human being, it is unethical to create that embryo.

Embryos will be destroyed intentionally....that much is fairly certain, I don't doubt that. Here's the part that's going to blow your fucking mind...I AM OKAY WITH THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF EMBRYOS.

I am ***NOT*** okay with the intentional CREATION of embryos, if the motivation is something other than trying to create a human life.

You heard it here folks....I am pro-death and destruction, anti creation, and eligible to run for President in 2012. Get your 527 groups started now.

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

[Abagadro]

Just use the left over fertility zygotes. There are lots of them going to waste (I personally have 15 on ice that won't be used).

BTW, since we are on the subject, the very IVF process you are talking about produced THIS:

http://home.comcast.net/~brianandjulie/Alec.html



/end shameless and thinly veiled reason to post pic of my new baby boy

[Rasix]

/end shameless and thinly veiled reason to post pic of my new baby boy

Woo, grats!

[Dark Vengeance]

Just use the left over fertility zygotes. There are lots of them going to waste (I personally have 15 on ice that won't be used).

BTW, since we are on the subject, the very IVF process you are talking about produced THIS:

http://home.comcast.net/~brianandjulie/Alec.html

/end shameless and thinly veiled reason to post pic of my new baby boy

With all due respect, congratu-fuckin-lations Abagadro. Seriously. Good to know that everyone involved is happy and healthy.

Not that he gives a shit, but tell Alec that the folks at F13 said Happy Birthday.

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

[Roac]

Bonus points for those that recognized the difference between 0 and >0 a few pages ago.

You may not have noticed where I stated that your view is akin to "the ends justify the means".  You stated that the "0" case is an immoral one, and I predicted that any morality would, to you, be worth any measure of immorality - they're justified by the end goal.

So if I was right in stating where your argument was going a couple pages back, why did you get all pissy about it?

The fact that I have to spell it out says that yes, indeed, the subtlety of the position is lost on you.

There's nothing subtle about moral relavism and slippery slope arguments.  They also lead to some fairly stupid positions - like, you'd have to accept that creating a single embryo exclusively for stem cell research is immoral, but creating a batch of 1000 of them with a lottary for one of them to win being implanted, with the other 999 going to the science bin, is morally right and justified.  It's also ignoring intent - which you claim you claim to be doing - in that the research scientist and the fertilization doctars are attempting (intending) to improve humanity through their efforts.  

That is, you accept that sacrificing embryos at any ratio with the goal of allowing a very, very strict minority of humanity to have a child is moral, while sacrificing them for research which has a large potential (which may not be realized - but then, the implanted embryo might die from SIDs, too - you take the risk) for benefit to all of hunanity from now until the end of our civilization is immoral.  

Which, if that's your value system, you're welcome to it; moral relavism allows you to pick your morals like most people pick their favorite color.  But don't try to pretend there's something subtle or clever about that choice.  You picked your favorite color.  Good boy - here, have a cookie.

[Roac]

If it is created in a laboratory, it is never going to become bigger than the sum of it parts.

The people who have been born after being "created" in a laboratory would tend to disagree with you.

[Roac]

::smiles::
Congrats, Abagadro.

[Dark Vengeance]

You may not have noticed where I stated that your view is akin to "the ends justify the means".  You stated that the "0" case is an immoral one, and I predicted that any morality would, to you, be worth any measure of immorality - they're justified by the end goal.

So if I was right in stating where your argument was going a couple pages back, why did you get all pissy about it?

You don't get it. I don't consider the destruction of embryos immoral....at all. If they tasted good on corn flakes, I'd spoon some onto my cereal right now. Take stem cells from them....that's fine, as long as they stay crunchy in milk. I don't care.

If it was a question of whether the ends justified the means, some would (and have in this very thread) argue that a form of research that has potential for medical benefit justifies not only the destruction of embryos, but the creation of embryos, if needed.

Now see, here is the flaw in your argument.....IVF does not always result in an embryo that is viable for pregnancy. Your previous statement....that IVF creates embryos for the purpose of destroying them....not only isn't it true all the time, it just isn't true. That was the basis for your position....that I agreed with that practice in one instance, but objected to it in another.

You nuanced it once to say that the ends (i.e. the results) justify the means.....now you're trying to nuance again to say that the goal justifies the means. It's a fucking pedantic argument, intended to find a logical inconsistentcy where none exists.

The intent....the reason for creating the embryo, what you intend to do with it....that's what I've said from the first post on this issue is what is important. The end for Stem Cells is to make medical advances, treat/cure diseases, and save lives. That's the goal. The end for IVF is for the woman to give birth to one or more children. That's the goal.

Neither one of those goals requires that we intentionally create a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying that embryo. You see the intentional creation, and the intentional destruction.....what you miss (or choose to ignore) is EVERYTHING between those events.

We're talking about taking something that was created for the purpose of trying to create life (i.e. the reason for all intentional conceptions),  then determined to be unfit or unable to fulfill that purpose, and will be destroyed (because it cannot fulfill its intended purpose), I don't see a problem if we use it in a way that allows mankind to get something positive out of it. Like I said before, if we could get some sort of benefit as a result of abortions, I'd be all for that as well.

You see, creating at least one fertilized embryo is what happens in every intentional NATURAL CONCEPTION. The same intent is what drives IVF. If that process produces more embryos than can (or will) be taken to term, or produces embryos that cannot survive the pregnancy, let's go ahead and use those for the research. Fuck, at that point, its not that different from an abortion....it's getting rid of an unwanted or impractical embryo within the first few days, just one that isn't within the mother's fallopian tubes/uterus. hell, in some cases this happens naturally...a fertilized embryo doesn't even always take NATURALLY.

By comparison, the Stem Cell issue I take issue with is that the demand for stem cells drives the creation of embryos. It is the polar opposite of the one and only purpose of conception....reproduction.

Holy shit, I can snip the rest, because it's all predicated on the idea that this is moral relativism, and a logical inconsistency.

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

[personman]

If you believe it is the same line, and crossing it is the same, no matter how you do it....well, enjoy life as a pacifist vegan pro-lifer I guess.

It's still more grim then that.  People that want to insist there is human life at the zygote stage are coming from a theological perspective... the logical extension is that life is immanent and all cells are divine sparks.

Even eating a handful of dirt destroys the sparks of the divine found in the bacteria and nematodes.  Vegans are genocidal killers accumulating karmic debt at an overwhelming pace.  :-J

Tongue in cheek aside the question of when life begins either has to be a religious rationale or a judgement of what life is significant enought to protect.

The religious path is the most relevant one but the one most likely to cause acrimony and so public policy freezes in its tracks.  But it would be fun to walk this path just to see the social conservative blocks disintegrate into internal schism.

Still, that leaves the significant life judgement - individual cells react to pain and stimuli but we can't argue they have a soul because we've agreed to ignore the religious arguments.  Dicing up zygotes then is no more unethical then eating a fresh green salad.  Carrots may well be self-aware at some level but we don't spend a lot of time agonizing over the pain we inflict on the well-ordered bio-system that is the adult carrot.

There is of course the third path, the spiritual/philosophical path, but that's even more controversial than religion.  Mainly because it comes across as New Age crap.  That's too bad because I think it's the path most rewarding to examine.  Of course it also leads to Soylent Green... ;-)

[personman]

/end shameless and thinly veiled reason to post pic of my new baby boy

Hey congratulations Ab! Beautiful kid.

We'll see you again in two years when you'll finally have entire pairs and trios of days of restful sleep... :-)

[Calantus]

Neither one of those goals requires that we intentionally create a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying that embryo. You see the intentional creation, and the intentional destruction.....what you miss (or choose to ignore) is EVERYTHING between those events.

This was addressed to Roac, but I'll reply to it as if addressed to me anyway. :P

This is true, I do choose to ignore everything that goes between. I do this because I do not feel it is relevant, and that seems to be the focus of our argument.

I know you don't feel that destroying IVF embryos is morally wrong, but if you're going to argue this point you have to forget that for a bit. IF destroying those embryos is morally wrong, how can the intention for which they were made change anything? Either way, when creating the embryos you know you are going to be destroying most of them (or they would fail, and I'm not sure that's any different when you create them in the first place).

On the other hand, IF destroying embryos is not morally wrong... I don't see a problem at all. Really, I can't see a problem with how they're used at all if they are not human (and religous things are not a factor, as they would have to be if its not seen as morally wrong). Like you said, people could eat them with their corn flakes for all it matters. So using them for life-saving research or making children (PROVIDED they develop in a natural womb and are without modification) is perfectly fine.

You know, I guess that there is a sliver of moral difference between the two, but it's not a big enough distinction to be relevant at all, let alone relevant to this particular situation. Since I feel that the distinction is irrelevant, and that the decision rests solely on whether destroying embryos is moral, I choose to ignore what goes on between the creation and destruction of the embryos. And I do not feel that position is wrong.

EDIT: Oh and congrats man. ;)

[Calantus]

There is of course the third path, the spiritual/philosophical path, but that's even more controversial than religion.  Mainly because it comes across as New Age crap.  That's too bad because I think it's the path most rewarding to examine.  Of course it also leads to Soylent Green... ;-)

That is exactly where I come from as far as indecision. I'm an athiest so the religeous debate is meaningless to me. I also believe in brain-death, and so apply the same basic tenant to the embryos (can it think? no? well there you go then). BUT, at the same time I can't bring myself to say yes destroy the embryos because of the potential that they could become humans.

I'm hovering between 2 beliefs:

1) If it hasn't developed a mind, then it's not human and does not have any rights, nor carry any moral baggage.

2) If a thing has all it needs to become human, and could do so without outside intervention, then it must be given all rights and protections properly given to a human being. So this would apply to a fertilised egg and stages beyond, but not either sperm or eggs by themselves.

I know that embryos outside of a womb are never going to to be anything without outside interference, but that is irrelevant as you brought about the situation whereby it needs you. Basically, the "outside interference" rule can be retroactively applied to the point at which the eggs were taken. Or you could see it as murder through ommitting to save the embryo (EDIT: especially since it would be like imprisoning someone and then neglecting to feed them, it's not normally your responsibility to see they eat, but if you prevent them from fending for themselves you need to feed them).

This would also apply to the morning after pill and abortion (duh), but would not apply to contraceptives that rely on prevention (condoms, pill, etc.) as they aim to prevent fertilisation rather than destroying the result of fertilisation.

I'm really not sure which one I truly believe, and I haven't tried too hard to decide because I don't feel my oppinion will change much at this point. But I figured I'd point out where I'm coming from anyway.

[Daeven]

As for Popular Science, I honestly haven't read it often enough to make an informed opinion.  I read Science, Nature, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association, and the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) for my broad look at current science.

I'd add Scientific American to that list  for a more 'lay' reporting style, while retaining most of the facts. Popular Science is just to damn fluffy for me.

Cell is a good sourse for Molecular Bio, but it is NOT a lay publication. Same with the Journal of Immunology.

But admitedly, those are highly specialized publications that problably are not of interest to most people.

[HaemishM]

Still, that leaves the significant life judgement - individual cells react to pain and stimuli but we can't argue they have a soul because we've agreed to ignore the religious arguments.  Dicing up zygotes then is no more unethical then eating a fresh green salad.  Carrots may well be self-aware at some level but we don't spend a lot of time agonizing over the pain we inflict on the well-ordered bio-system that is the adult carrot.

And the angel of the Lord came unto me,
snatching me up from my
place of slumber,
and took me on high,
and higher still until we
moved in the spaces betwixt the air itself.
and he bore me unto a
vast farmland of our own midwest,
and as we descended cries of
impending doom rose from the soil.
one thousand, nay, a million
voices full of fear.
and terror possessed me then.
and I begged,

"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me,
"These are the cries of the carrots,
the cries of the carrots.
You see, reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day
and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat
like the tears of one millions terrified brothers
and roared,
"Hear me now,
I have seen the light,
they have a consciousness,
they have a life,
they have a soul.
damn you!
let the rabbits wear glasses,
save our brothers...can I get an amen?
can I get a hallelujah? thank you, Jesus.

life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on...
this is necessary

This is where science as a belief system fails, because it cannot define what differentiates life from non-life. Whereas the religious argument can just define life as being different from non-life in that there is a "soul." Science can't believe in a soul, because it cannot prove or disprove a soul.

[WayAbvPar]

Congrats Ab! Hope you can learn to play online poker with the baby on your lap...give you something to do in the middle of the night =)

If it is created in a laboratory, it is never going to become bigger than the sum of it parts.

The people who have been born after being "created" in a laboratory would tend to disagree with you.

Since I was referring to creating zygotes expressly for the harvesting of stem cells (which the rest of my posts clearly indicate), this is just a ridiculous 'argument'. +1 to Semantics.

Feel free to post any pictures of the test tube babies who were born in a lab with no human womb involved.

[RhyssaFireheart]

Congrats, Abagadro!

[schild]

Ab, that's awesome. Give him a controller and let him beat X-Men Legends. You have to train them when their young and impressionable.