Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, we can all be grateful for GOP's leadership on science
Seriously, we need bot embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research. Neither is immoral, as if the people who are claiming it is have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals anyways. Using discarded embryos to save lives instead of flushing them down the toilet to become fish food is not immoral. You can argue whether creating embryos for sole purpose of stem cell research is immoral, but there is no valid argument that harvesting embryos that would otherwise be discarded is immoral.
While I'm in favor of any and all stem cell research and don't think it's worth getting all uppity over a few nonsentient cells, I'm not sure that there isn't a valid argument to be made in favor of the difference between disposal and experimentation. I mean, how would you feel if instead of burying grandma, scientists used her corpse to study the effects on the human body of a failed parachute opening by throwing her dead body out of a plane at a few thousand altitude? She was going to be cremated or buried anyway, so what difference what we do with the body? But clearly we do care about the method of disposal (and that's on an irrefutably dead person) and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss people who have genuine concerns over what they feel to be a potential human life.
That said, I'm more comfortable messing around with stem-cells than just about any animal experimentation. My morality zone has a lot to do with the ability to perceive suffering/pain, which animals can, regardless of their intelligence.