Blasocysts and zygotes tendancy to frequently NOT develop into embryos due to spontaneous abortion is one of the chief ridiculers of the 'every sperm is sacerd' school of thought.
But I still think zygotes are alive and a form of life.
Yes, but so are bacteria. You're right, but that piece of data isn't neccesarilly an argument either way. It's like saying chlorophyll is green.
The phrase 'playing god' STILL doesn't MEAN anything. You can say it all you like, it has no more meaning than hitting your keyboard with a foam hammer to randomly type characters.
I think so far there is way more to the issue of stem cell and so far all that has been posted are arguments that are one sided and only have some facts supporting opinions rather than looking at all the facts.
Stop complaining and bring what you feel are the arguments from the other side.
I don't think that most of us on the board are even qualified to determine the health issues involved with this type of science.
The 'health issues' have to be determined by research. Just like they normally do. That is what will "determine the health issues involved with this type of science". Of course, we could just tell people who may be able to benefit from stem cell research in the future they can die as we're not going to bother to even research the area?
That was some very good article posted on the dangers of gene manipulation.
No, that was stuff that fitted in with your opinions. Doesn't mean it was 'good'.If the same 'logic' was applied to other areas of tissue donation we still wouldn't have transplants. Would you refuse an organ transplant or a blood transfusion?
I also think to view this in the same context as masturbation and menstration is a mistake. The sperm dies in time reguardless of masturbation and exits thru the urine. Most sperm die in the process of procreation.
By your logic then, the fact that many fertilised eggs never even become implanted and simply die is all we need to know.
Reguardless of what Abaddon has to say the issue is a moral one as well.
You can state that all you like heathen. What you are yet to do is argue that convincingly. Getting snitty just because you don't HAVE a counter argument to having meaningless moralistic statements rebuffed doesn't get anyone anywhere.
The US government keeps insisting that they can determine some code of ethics based on religious beliefs as well .
Like the US government knows shit about ethics?
First and foremost, there are profound immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one human being into the body of another.
This argument would have disallowed ALL organ transplants and blood transfusions plus most vacination. As jws points out, all the arguments made by the material you provide merely underline we need more research; we are at a level of knowledge with stem cells roughly equivalent to organ transplants in the 1950's.
Are you saying a heart beat or detectable electrical activity in the brain donates humanity?
You can't be saying that stopping ANY heart beating is wrong, not unless you are a Jain or a extreme animal liberationalist.
You have not responded to the FACT that the amount of nerve tissue in a 12-week fetus is smaller than that in a pet rat. Regardless of whether a heart is beating or not, regardless of electrical activity in the brain (or tissues that will become a brain), to define a first-trimester fetus as the 'same' as a new born requires one to assert beliefs not supportable by physical evidence.
You are welcome to have those beliefs, but not to compel others to follow them.