Exactly what I thought after I posted my response.

This happens every damn time.

Pretty clever trap he lays.
He really knows how to ride the cusp, the teetering edge of being that way purposefully or ignorantly.

And then there's the cusp of whether he's laying a trap at all.

Don't mind me... I just like saying the word 'cusp'.
It is like watching a psychological thriller though. Unfortunately this one seems like it doesn't have a reveal.

Don't need? Do we need to figure anything out? There's a really important difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells from the earliest stages of development can become any cell in the body and can even be used to clone a whole new organism. This isn't something adult stem cells can do. If you want adult stem cells to do this, be as useful as embryonic stem cells, then obviously you have to know what it is that makes embryonic stem cells special, what it is that makes them develop and if it's possible to undo some or all of the differentiation that has taken place in adult stem cells.

If we can get the same kind of potential from adult stem cells, perhaps we don't need to use embryonic stem cells anymore. But you know, walking a mile starts with a single step.

The rest of your post contains a lot of unexplained/unsupported statements which I would like to see you elaborate on.

Why is it unethical? I just argued that from a utilitarian point of view, which is a moral theory based on a happiness principle (maximize happiness/reduce suffering), stem cell research can be the right moral thing to do. How can you say it's not?

There is a natural law not to interfere or disript the development of a fetus? What is this natural law? And the research itself is not abortion. A fetus is donated after abortion has taken place so the moral decision to abort pregnancy is not a dilemma decided by the researchers.

How do you know that embryos have a purpose? And again, how do you feel when you take into account that a fetus used in research has already been aborted and can't fulfill it's "purpose" even if one accepts it has one?

Forbidden? And then with the purpose .. what purpose? Again, it's not the goal of stem cell research to kill babies. You are debating as if stem cell research = abortions. That is a misconception with very important ethical implications so I think you need to sort that out and provide some ethical arguments that differentiate between the two. It's not a goal of stem cell research and treatment to kill embryos.

You can't see how technology that "takes life" can benefit life. How does a treatment of injecting stem cells into damaged tissue take life? I think you got it mixed up with abortions again. If you want to know how it can benefit life, stem cells can potentially replace any dead/damaged cell in your body from muscle damage, liver, brain, inner ear, you name it! In it's potential for healing, it is beyond any doubt the biggest thing since the discovery of penicillin and I would say even greater.

I think that if you have a brain dead person you have to look at whether or not they decided to be an organ donor and go from there. It's not the most efficient way, but right now I think it's the best we have and are ready for. This is a humongously touchy subject after all, and it needs to be carefully discussed and touched upon.

I didn't say it is not, I didn't say stem cell research was unethical. I said human embryonic stem research was unethical, base on the fact that it is using human embryos and they gather those human embryo through unethical means. That human embryo is part of the developement of a human being, and the human embryo should not be destroyed nor collected and manipulated and experimented on, nor cloned etc. I guess you do not consider that a human embryo (even though it is simple in structure) is a human being and that it has no value of a human being. But just as it is unthinkable to use a person in an experiment that would destroy that person, it is equally so to use a human embryo.

I see you making claims that this is unethical, but I've still yet to see you provide any reasoning or arguments as to why. I mean, an early embryo doesn't look like a human, can't experience it's surroundings like a human, isn't smart like the average human - why does it deserve the kind of moral consideration we typically have for people? On top of that, does it deserve that moral consideration if it's already dead?

I provided a utilitarian argument as to why it is not unethical in this post. I'd like you to provide some more tangible whys as well .. not because I think your opinion is wrong, but right now it looks like you're basing your arguments on a simple "because I say so" ;)

To confront you with another question, you think it's unethical to experiment on the fetus because it is a dead human. Why does that make it unethical?

more pro's than cons.. for it

I feel if you were in a situation where someone close to you was in need of this kinda of research to be done that you would be for it. Guess it takes presuading for the immortal.

If the woman wants to abort its her call, the research only gives the purpose to the embryo..

Unethical, but with good intent?? Check minus for nay sayers... We're not making Zombies here!

We don't just eat the meat, we also use the bones for tools.. This is the way humans are, give it meaning, purpose, and joy... Not a biohazard can or a clothes hanger... Once again lost my dog today.. Bit pissed

All the genetic material that human being needs is present at the time of conception, even the human being goes through different developemental stages it does not take away from the fact that it is a human being.

It sounds like you are saying a human being has two stages a non-human stage and then a human stage. And that the non-human stage (e.g. a human embryo) does not merit moral consideration. That is a little complicated, when does this transition from non-human to human take place? Is it gradual or sudden? And where does this opinion of a non-human human embryo come from? I can not understand why anyone would take that stance that a human embryo is not human. Even if a person is not religious what about the philosphical understanding of a human being, natural law and the ethical treatment of a unborn human being?

I like to see you as well to prove that a human embryo is not part of the developement of the human being. If you can prove to me that a human being can skip over the embryonic stage and prove it is not neccessary for or a part of human life then you can start to build your case.


It is not the fact that it is a dead fetus, it is the fact that the human fetus had it's life deliberately taken from it. They are starting off with an unethical act, termination of life, then proceed to study stem cell that was procured from that unethical act.

There is adult stem cell research, which does not rely on the termination of life of a fetus or the use of destroyed embryos. And since there is an ethical way to go about stem cell research it makes the unethical way unnecessary and twice as wrong.

Here you are making up an imaginary argument which I have never actually promoted. I believe the term is "strawmanning"? I have never claimed that fetuses are not human or that there is a threshhold one crosses in development where you suddenly deserve to be treated as a human .. It's painfully obvious you haven't read the post I referred you to.

If you want to argue against my moral views on stem cell research, at least get the right ones! Good on you for dodging those difficult questions, though ;)

So what if a fetus has human DNA? How does that make it deserve to be treated with the same moral consideration you'd have for the average grown-up?

I believe I already explained why one "has" to research embryonic stem cells so I won't bother repeating myself. As for the starting off with an unethical act, I think that since the decision to abort and the decision to research are two independent decisions, one shouldn't morally affect the other. If researchers were asking people to do abortions so that they could research the fetuses, then I think your criticism would be justified. Since they don't, I really think you should treat the abortion part and the research part morally independent of eachother.

To extrapolate the kind of view you seem to be promoting, it would be unethical to study a thousands of years old mummy if it's death way back then was by torture. ;)

Put in practical terms, I think you should forget the abortions and then focus on whether the research is unethical or not.

It's not a strawman, I never insist that you said something, actuaclly I said "it sounds like.." and I am only trying to understand your reason for opposing me about human life before birth. And it comes from statements like this:

It's painfully obvious you haven't read my post, either, if you read what I wrote you should know I've mentioned adult stem research. Since I mentioned adult stem research, why would I argue against stem research?

I can not agree with you on that point, they are related, because the researcher would not have the opportunity to research the human cells taken from human fetuses without that act happening in the first place. There was a similar problem this reminds me of that happened in the 19th century:

That analogy doesn't make sense, why would they cruelly torture a king and then very carefully and reverently perserve him forever by mummifying him?

It is the very fact that the scientist and researchers forgets the abortions that makes it unethical.

Wether it's ethical or not, you know where I stand, I'm against stem cell research that involves human emrbyos and human fetuses that were aborted.

I doubt they "forget" that the fetus was aborted or not. It doesn't matter at that point anyway. The abortions will continue regardless of the fact that research is done on the byproduct. Abortions don't happen for the sake of research. That particular research simply achieves two goals: Making the abortion possibly mean something in the long term, and potentially helping save millions of lives with its findings.

Researching an aborted fetus is in no way promoting abortion.
I don't know where you're getting your logic from, but you should probably do a little research on its source... because it's way off.

What's unethical is sitting on our asses letting millions of people die of diseases we can eventually prevent and not doing a damn thing about it. I really don't think using a dead body to do that is unethical.

I guess you oppose autopsies as well?
Would that be unethical to you?

Well, this is something you wrote :

Start to build my case? Prove that an embryo is not part of the development? None of this is relevant to any of the ethical points I've argued for earlier in this thread. You seem to have not read my post because you confront me with this and if you had read the post I referred to, you would have known that I used a utilitarian argument which grades an action's morality on the consequences of that action, not whether or not a fetus is human which is, according to utilitarism, morally irrelevant.

What? I don't get this part.

In your example, the fact medical schools paid for bodies makes that a motive for murder. It's causal. The same is not true for fetuses used in stemcell research. The motive for abortion is not to help stemcell research or to benefit economically from the fetuses death. Huge difference!

I see you don't know this, but kings, pharaohs and other social elites are not the only ones who get mummified. There are the incan children mummifications for example or the self-mummifying Skushinbutsu monks from Japan. Even if you find it unlikely, you could still try and use your imagination to construct a "what if" scenario in your mind ;) The reason it works as an example is that the death of the mummy does not directly relate to the scientific research conducted on it. The mummy didn't die 3000 years ago so that people could study them today. The same way, fetuses don't die because of stemcell research.

Here you make a moral statement again, but you have no argument to back it. Why is it unethical to forget? So far, despite somewhat lengthy posts, you have not yet provided one single argument as to why stemcell research or even abortions is wrong. You've only stated that it is. Do you see what I mean?

I used a utilitarian argument to defend my position. It's based on a principle that a moral action is good if it has good consequences. Good consequences lead to pleasure in some form. Bad consequences lead to suffering in some form. Your job as a moral being according to the utilitarian principle is to maximize pleasure or/and reduce suffering. The amount of consideration any living being should recieve depends on its, his or hers ability to feel pleasure or suffering, the ability to be affected by your moral decision.

Although I do believe abortions and the research itself are separate events, I've used a utilitarian argument to defend abortions as well as the research. Defending the research is simple, stemcell research will have groundbreaking positive consequences and can help heal so many ailments both now and in the future. Dead fetuses don't suffer, at least we can't assume they do, so they do not deserve any moral consideration.

When I defended abortions using a utilitarian argument, I wrote that in an abortion, there are potentially two main targets for moral consideration. The mother and the fetus. If she's a healthy, normal human being, we know about the mother's capacity for feeling pleasure or suffering. We know that abortion or not will have immense consequences for her happiness or suffering. The fetus on the other hand is comparatively less capable to experience the consequences of the decision. You then have to prioritize the mother and her happiness/suffering over that of the fetus.


These are ethical arguments explain how and why actions are right or wrong, something that all your posts so far lack. Why is stemcell research wrong? Because God says so? If you want to discuss morals, you should figure out a way to not just say what your views are, but explain them. Aren't your moral beliefs based on anything but "because"?

What I mean in essence is that they are acting like they have forgotten there was an abortion that took place. Maybe if they remember that they are dealing with a human fetus, they would speak up against it.

You insist have not yet provided one single argument as to why stemcell research is wrong. I don't know what you are looking for, I'm not going to say in general all stem cell research is wrong. I've from my first post have made a distinction between adult and embryonic stem cell research. I'm not going to make a general statement about ethics of stem research, when stem research encompasses both ethical and unethical means of studying stems cells. You should remember that I've mention adult stem cell research and said that they have positive results. A good example is bone marrow transplant that uses adult stem cells. The ethical issue is where the stem cells originally come from. There is a distinction to which one is unethical and which one isn't. Embryonic and aborted fetuses stem cell research is unethical. The research they are doing starts with and comes from the fact that a (man-made) abortion of a human fetus took place and they are using a human fetus that was aborted that should not have been aborted. They are experimenting on a deceased body that should not have died that way. The purpose of a human emrbyo/fetus is to develope into an human being. There is no complicated or sophisticated arguement to offer why a preborn human being has a right to life. :confused: Just like you said a journey starts with a first step, the embryo/fetus is the first steps of life for human beings. What kind of arguement are you looking for to prove a preborn human being has the right to life?

I'm all for stem cells and the research surrounding them. Like somebody said earlier (I think it was Burning Down), I also tend to liken this situation to healthy people's organs being donated after their death. Like like when somebody with many good organs passes away, the cells (in this case) aren't going to be having any other role so why not use them for things that could lead to saving people's lives? I think it's a very exciting time in science. I can understand people being against the act of abortion, but taking stem cells from already aborted fetuses is a completely different thing.

A question for anyone that may know - can you also get stem cells from placentas? I've heard this somewhere and was thinking about it. In this case, when the placenta comes out of the mother following childbirth can they be used to get stem cells? Also, can stem cells be taken from fetuses that have been miscarried for other reasons (not abortion)?

here are two article you might be interested in:

UK Researcher: Cord Blood Real Potential for Cures, - Part 1

UK Researcher: Stem Cells

You still don't get it :p: I'm aware that there's stem cell research you don't find so morally wrong, adult stem cell research. However, that's not interesting to me. What's interesting to me is trying to figure out what it is that makes the use of embryonic stem cells morally wrong because this is something you seem to think.

You write for example that they are experimenting on a deceased body which should not have died that way. Why is it wrong to experiment on bodies which "should not" have died that way? How should it have died? Is it always unethical to research dead bodies?

I know now why I'm not getting any good answers. Not to be nasty, but after all this back and forth, it is clear you don't know much ethics. You probably haven't taken a course in philosophy which covers the different morale theories or studied this in your own time. It's also clear that either you haven't found answers for such questions yourself - or - if you have, you are keeping it a secret. I know you are a christian and different branches of christianity promote different kinds of dos and donts such as the ten commandments. Perhaps this is the basis for your argument, but you're not telling because you don't think a view on morale based in religion will get any recognition? Or you don't want to see discussion used against it?

Basically, I'm trying to figure out if there's any depth to your arguments which can be discussed on a philosophical level. If there's not, then there's not much weight in your arguments. You say something is unethical without explaining why. Saying it is because the fetuses shouldn't have died that way is not an explanation .. it only begs for a new question; why does that make it unethical?

Interesting interview! I'd like to point out that it is essentially one scientist who's never worked on embryonic stem cells bashing other scientists who do. His claim is that it's unnecessary, but I'm sure you could ask a different scientist and get a completely different answer, so don't swallow this whole ;) There are some interesting points there, though.

I do agree that it would be better if stem cells for treatment came from somewhere else than embryos. I am not personally bothered that the stem cells with the most potential currently come from fetuses, but it would be more practical if they came from somewhere else, f.ex if we could grow them or if we could reverse the differentiation process and turn advanced cells back into stem cells. It would also be practical if it had more support from the general public, although that bit seems to have improved quite a bit over the years.

Stem cell research is brilliant...
For class, I've done a few research essays on the potential of limb regrowth and artificial organs. Really interesting stuff. I'd like to dabble in it some day.
It'd have so much more potential once someone discovers how to dedifferentiate cells... Then there's be no need to get babies involved. xD

Ok, I may be dredging this up but I've only just got round to reading this in it's entirety.

From what I can see, the debate (if you can call one person against everyone else a constructive debate) is more to do with being pro-life and against abortion rather than the actual matter at hand.

On a personal level, I've had an abortion (think I mentioned before I'm pretty frank and open about shit like this), thought this wasn't actually through choice. There were complications. This leaves my views on abortions a little skewed. BUT, should I have been given the opportunity to 'donate' in anyway I would have jumped at it.

When put into perspective, I would see this no differently than to a parent allowing a child to be an organ donor. Death, be it an old man, a kid or an aborted fetus will always happen so I don't see how embryonic stem cell research to an aborted fetus is any different to organ donation or those who choose to donate their bodies to science. I can understand those that say a fetus is a life from day 1, regardless that it can't think/feel etc and that it should have rights, I feel that way too, but as with anything, if a child or person can't make a choice (organ donation, life support, whatever) then that desicion is made by those closest to them who decide what is best. That's acceptable, so why is making the same kind of desicion on behalf of an aborted fetus any different?

The fact that almost everyone voted yes makes me very happy. I do not believe in the idea of a soul being created at the moment of conception or souls at all. I think it is completely ridiculous to compare the life of a 150 cell creature to that of a person.