Great article Erik. It seems that scientists (who have a lot to gain from embryonic stem cell research) have been doing a lot of speaking on behalf of people living with disease and disability in our community. Nice to hear you speaking out for yourself.

The vast majority of research using embryos all over the world, and now in Australia, has been done testing and training for new IVF techniques. As was expected, cures and therapies have taken and will continue to take a back seat. They're just not that realistic (with an almost complete lack of preliminary research using animals) and also not that profitable. Shamefully, the public was misled in the debate on this a couple of years ago.

"I purge an egg (or two) every month that is no further along than these stem cells except for the fact of the 'magic moment' of fertilization."

You’re quite mistaken. Contrary to popular thought, once an egg has been fertilized it actually becomes a separate being from the parent, dividing using its own genome. It isn’t part of the mother’s body; in fact strictly speaking it is a parasite. It implants itself into the mother’s uterine wall and uses her for food, warmth etc.

When you think about it, this is no different to a 2 year old baby. He still hasn’t achieved independence, and is reliant on his mother for food (bottled milk, or maybe still breast milk), shelter and all the rest. My mother probably sometimes still thinks of me as a parasite :).

Trying to classify the value of a human life by the stage of development it is at in life is fraught with danger. The only thing we know for sure is that the genome inside that blastocyst will eventually turn into a unique human being, just like the 2 year old.

I am totally for zealous research to find cures for delibitating diseases, but not at the expense of other lives. I would like to think that in this day and age our research carries greater ethical standards.

I just want to say that, as a mother of a child with a disablity, it's terrible trying to raise a child to adulthood when that child is never normal. Life is hell for the whole family much of the time. All the rhetoric about how "wonderful it is to have a child like that", how "God has chosen one to raise this child because He knows one can cope", how "this child is special" makes me feel so angry. Where are the other parents like me who are brave enough to tell the truth? If only I could have prevented my family from having to go through it, if I could have prevented my son from leading this life of never belonging, always needing support, never being able to say what he wants. If only. I've had 25 years to think about all the issues, I've been down all the paths, I am at a stage now where I believe these people are better off not living. I know it's unfashionable to say that these days and I would never harm my son, but I wish he never was. I hope research brings an end to the suffering of the babies born with disablities and the families that have to raise them. I know Pastor Niemoeller's words by heart - yet still I believe we must do something to stop the birth of people who can't look after themselves.

"You’re quite mistaken. Contrary to popular thought, once an egg has been fertilized it actually becomes a separate being from the parent, dividing using its own genome." Actually that's not correct either, 86! The human genome activates around the 6-8 cell stage, 2 to 3 days post-fertilisation. Before then it relies on the egg's cytoplasm. Of those that make it, and very few do in vivo(80% plus attrition rate, so the vast majority do NOT eventually make it), their genome is certainly unique. But this shouldn't reduce individualism, and 'when life begins', to mere genetic reductionism. Our personhood should not be reduced to any one thing...when we begin, while fascinating, is not really answerable and perhaps shouldn't be. Why draw arbitary lines? The egg is alive as are those sperm. Perhaps a better way of looking at life (not persons) would be a circular perspective, with no definitive start or end point (annoying:)

Monika Sarder,

"Do you have any orginal thoughts of your own or do you just like downloading thematic quotes from web pages?"

I presume you missed my first post and lept to this conclusion...

"Science has always been subject to safeguards that evolve along with it. We live in a democracy, public scrutiny (provided the public is sufficiently informed by a vigilant media) provides a check on the legislature which can then impose limits."

Your confidence in your fellow man is idealistic and about as fundamentalist as those you are painting as "cabe (cave) men."

"Everything (except maybe your quote fetish) has a context."

My 'quote fetish' was merely an illustration that greater minds than yours (and perhaps mine - hubris is a wonderful thing) have not seen science as pure as your seem to. Quite in context...

As for 'quality of life' being a criteria, can we wipe out the third world, after all it is only doing them a favour, indeed, they probably shouldn't have been allowed to have been born anyway...keep shifting that first world, individualistic, utilitarian philosophy...

Dear anomie,

you line "As usual, the pro-life (a brilliant bit of marketing, that title, with its logical corollary that opponents are pro-death)..."

So what does the term 'pro-choice' indicate? That mother's have no choice? That father's have no-choice? That the infant en route has no choice? That society has no choice in protecting the weak & vulnerable? etc etc. Nice try at reverse incrimination...

Mountebank
Yeah?? I didn't know that hey (about the genome kicking in 3 days post), but I'll be sure to look into it. Thanks for your response.

The main issue I was trying to raise was that there is a definite change that occurs during fertilization which makes the cell a seperate being from the host mother. The reason I focused on the genome was so I could introduce just one concept as an analogy for simplicity sake.

As for your comment, "Perhaps a better way of looking at life (not persons) would be a circular perspective, with no definitive start or end point". I struggle with accepting that reasoning, purely because as I said some definite changes have occurred post fertilization that are hard to ignore. For example, the reality is if we could create an artificial womb, we could extract that egg and it would grow entirely of its own accord into an individual being. In fact, what would kill it if it went outside of the womb is familiar foes such as lack of shelter or nutrients. It is clearly longer a cell of the mother's body.

It really scares me when we choose to not discuss those realities and resort to cynicism (i.e. Monika's quote) in avoidance. We must be sure to make clear logically thought out ethical boundaries. Most importantly, our determination on when life begins cannot be prejudiced by whether we desire stem cell research and abortion.

ps. forgive me for the dodgy grammar, its quite late