Objecting to stem cell research on the grounds that it is the destruction of human life suppose that what makes us of moral significance is already present in the pre-implantation embryo. The view requires that the pre-embryo will become a person, rather than that it will produce one. (Otherwise, the thing that consists of a sperm in one body and an ovum in another would have the same moral status--an absurdity no one wants to accept.)

There are two very strong arguments that deny that any pre-embryo ever becomes a person. The blunt assertion that destroying pre-embryos is the destruction of human life ignores these arguments.

Here are rough versions. The first holds that we are whatever it is that has thoughts and desires and the like. And it is pretty clear that that is the brain. Hence, when the brain dies, we hold that the person is dead, even though the body may be kept alive. I began, therefore, when an implanted embryo produced a brain. I was never a pre-embryo. In the relevant sense, a pre-embryo is no more a living human being than a hydatiform cyst is.

The second depends on two facts: that pre-embryos can split or be split, with identical twins resulting, and that every pre-embryo divides into what becomes (or gives rise to) the embryo proper, and what makes the umbilical cord and the extra-embryonic membranes. No coherent account of identity will allow the conclusion that the pre-embryo becomes an implanted one. Thus again, I was never a pre-embryo. There is nothing wrong with destroying them.

The first trimester...

http://www.nswrtl.org.au/first_trimester.html

A reputable site, I'm sure. Read it trying to filter out the emotion, but apart from the way its expressed, I'd say its pretty medically accurate.

Thoughts?

Ben there is a huge difference and it is very very basic.

1. Soldiers are consenting adults
2. Unborn (or born) children are innocent lives incapable of consent.

Your argument is like a pedophile saying "well adults like it, why not kids?" - It is just ridiculous.

Daniel06, an embyro is not alive, it is a potential life - if all things go well. One third of fertilised human embyros are spontaneously aborted.

A soldier may have been conscripted in the army to fight.

Thats amazing Billie!

I think you are next in line for the Nobel Peace Prize. You are obviously a medical scientist, yes?

And not only that you have discovered a "non-living" organism with human DNA that can somehow grow millions of "live" cells to resurch and yet it is not alive! This is the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time.

It is truley amazing! And it was all discovered here on Online Opinion.

Which medical lab do you work for? I need to call Ray Martin right now.

Daniel06 its a a very dirty debating tactic to accuse people who disagree with you of being "paedophiles".

Another dirty debating tactic is belittling the arguments of the opposition. As I stated in the earlier post nature doesn't regard human embryos as anything precious. In fact mother nature spontaneously aborts about a third of fertilised eggs. The state of human society is such that we can ensure survival of the species by rearing two eggs to adulthood, perhaps 3 eggs. If women rear 15 eggs to adulthood we will deplete the earth's resources at an even faster rate than we are presently and more people would be living in hunger.

As I said in the previous post armies often conscript their soldiers. You ask troops in any European Union country or Russia whether they want to be in the army or whether they are just completing their national service.

And Daniel06 I suggest that you have a look at patients suffering from long term debilitating conditions and tell them that you want to see them suffer because that's more palatable than permitting stem cell research to continue.

And don't use puerile debating tactics.