Yabby,

If you're a parent (I have my doubts) I’m sure you've been open and honest with your children;

- explained why they had no value (to you) until they developed a neo cortex around 25 weeks and 'looked' more like what a REAL human should look like;
- told them that up to that point you had no qualms about dispelling them from your body, and;
- told them how the same measure you passed over them before they were born could be passed over them again later if their brain is damaged in any way.

How did your children react when you told them their earliest stages of life were no more valuable to you than 'worthless strings of dna flushed down life's toilet'? Did they take it well?

Being a reasonable type you’d also tell your children they're welcome to apply the same measures to your potential grandchildren - and then of course to you personally once you've outlived your USEFULNESS to them. When you're at your most vulnerable your life will be in your children's well-trained hands - a sweep of the pen all that's needed - perhaps a second sweep for your assets too.

Yabby, I don't know if you're male or female because your entire identity is fictitious. If you're really a parent, please, please choose your words very carefully. Choices have consequences.

I don't understand your reference to Gates and Buffett. If you're trying to impress with celebrity and dollars, please don't waste your time. I'm impressed by ethical people and ethical actions, not wealth. I'm impressed by genuine people who continually find ways to benefit society without dismantling something valuable (humanity) in the process.

I'm impressed by people who understand the 'ripple effect' consequences of their choices and actions. I'm impressed by the insightful. I'm impressed by the selfless.

But most of all, I'm impressed by those who are so deeply committed to doing the right thing they resist pressure, forgo personal gain, stand up for what's right. I'm impressed by the valuable legacy they leave for the future, for our children.

Cris, to me the most important thing for kids to know is that they were really
wanted from conception onwards. The world is full of people with psychological
scars, from parents who reminded their kids that they were forced on them
by the system. Thankfully this has now changed somewhat in the West, as
mothers in fact have more options, unlike years ago.

I am male actually, but very much defend the right of women to decide,
which of the 400, all potentially cute babies they decide to carry for 9 months
and provide for, for another 20 or so years after that. As Darwin rightly pointed
out, nature will always create far more potential beings of any species, then
care ever survive.

When and if I am ever at the point, as people like Betina Arnt have pointed out,
where I am in agony, heading toward my last breath and pallitive care can’t
help me, I want the choice to decide what happens. I don’t want the system
to torture me to my last breath, I would not even do that to my dog quite frankly.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20803861-5006029,00.html

You are free to be impressed by the selfless. Last I read, some MRI scans were
done on people to understand altruism. What was found was that the
dopamine/reward/pleasure centres of the brain lit up, in other words, they
do it as it makes them feel good! Perhaps that’s not so selfless after all.

I am more impressed with people who get results, despite the odds. If
scientists and philanthropists come together, stuff happens and people I know
who are in wheelchairs, get their lives back, I will be impressed!

Perhaps it will then also make me feel good, to know that I pointed all these
things out to some guy called Cris and that despite his protestations, I perhaps
played a teensy weensy part in persuading somebody in internet land that this
all should go ahead and it did

Yabby,

You claim compassion for the wheelchair-bound so I have to assume you’ve told ‘people you know in wheelchairs’ about major advances in ETHICAL stem cell research, because not to do so would be unconscionable. The significance of the following news extract is that the nervous system is also implicated in MS.

Stem Cell Therapy In Multiple Sclerosis - Now It Is Time To Really Start, 24 November 2006 - Clinical research with human stem cells to REPAIR BRAIN DAMAGE in MS patients should be intensified. Although not unanimously, this was the main conclusion of an international medical scientific conference on MS and stem cell therapy in Italy today, organised by the independent European Charcot Foundation. ... According to the 300 SCIENTISTS gathered today, preconditions to this challenging research are:
-- autologous stem cells should be used (derived from patients' own bone marrow, skin, blood).
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=57455

Yabby, There’s no immediate benefit to society in this proposed legislation. There's a very real long-term danger to society in this legislation. There's also a very real danger funding will be redirected whilst progress on ETHICAL stem cell research, which holds more promise, falters or stops.

Why do you continue to ignore the balance of evidence? Perhaps it’s because this legislation is well-suited to your philosophy. For example; your solution to over-population is to indiscriminately destroy embryos. Your solution to the prospect of deficient parents - indiscriminately destroy embryos. Your solution for those not ready for motherhood (or fatherhood) - indiscriminately destroy embryos. Your solution to human suffering – indiscriminately destroy embryos.

I see a pattern here. Do you? Destroying embryos and 'using' embryos appears to be your solution to all the world’s problems. My obvious concern with your ‘philosophy’ is that apart from being immoral and unethical, it’s clearly unsustainable. All you present is a philosophical abyss – a downward spiral with no end, no bottom in sight.

Yabby, Darwin spoke of evolution and natural selection. Darwin did not promote abortion as a preferred method of birth control, nor did he recommend the human race embark on new industries in embryonic spare parts.

Cris, I remind you that there is no such thing as objective morality, simply our
subjective opinions. Therefore what you call ethical or moral is simply your
opinion and no more. Clearly the majority of Western society does in fact
not agree with you.

What people in wheelchairs and others with various disabilities and diseases
need to know, is that we care enough to to leave no stone unturned, to try
to alleviate their suffering and help them regain their lives. Anything else
would be inhumane.

Cris, you don’t know what the benefits will be from this proposed legislation
and ensuing research. So lets find out. When the telephone was invented,
who predicted the internet and broadband ? Only 12 years ago, when
I was the first around these parts to see the potential of the internet and
joined up, many thought I was crazy. Look at it now!

I don’t ignore the balance of evidence. I just think that you happen to
try to dig up evidence that suits your agenda, so why should I look
at you as unbiased? I’ve experienced very similar chestnuts before,
in similar kinds of debates.

Cris I simply draw a line in the sand a bit different to yours. You seem
to have no problems about millions of sperms and ova being flushed
down lifes toilets, yet when they join up, you become emotional about
it. Sorry, but I don’t become emotional about cells, as you do. I’d rather
use those resources to reduce suffering. Cells do not suffer, feel or think.

Its not my decision what women do with their embryos, its their decision.
I respect that right of theirs, to make that decision, unlike many, who want
to force and compel them. That’s all very well for some, to sit back
and pontificate, they don’t have to decide between A and B, as many
of these women do in the real world. I remind you that when HH was
faced with that difficult dilemma, even he has so far not responded.

You believe in holy cells, I don’t, all quite simple

I'm curious. Where does it say in the Bible at what point a human being exists? I've always thought it was at birth, which would make Yabby's definition very conservative in comparison. What would you find less distasteful, treading on a two day old fertilised egg or a two day old chicken? I'll just have to go with my feelings on this question, and I believe that others should be allowed to also. The morality that would make a huge distinction between gametes about to fuse and an embryo of a few cells is completely beyond me.

Yabby,

Our understanding of morality differs markedly. You believe it’s morally preferable to abort new human life. I believe it’s morally preferable to carry a child full-term so two loving, adoptive parents can begin their family.

Society understands the axis of morality lies in balancing fairness for ALL.

Your axis is subjective - with the ‘subject’ being SELF. Perspectives based on an axis of ‘self’ (however guised) can never impersonate a balanced moral perspective in the context of society as a whole. A wolf dressed up in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf.

The majority of Western Society has been under-informed on the consequences of the proposed legislation. Most aren’t even aware Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) involves artificial fertilization resulting in a human embryo. Society therefore can’t legitimately support that which it doesn’t truly understand – and your claim of ‘majority support’ belongs in the same category as ‘full disclosure of SCNT information to the public’ – missing.

Interesting choice of the familiar proverb 'Leave no stone unturned’. Use of this proverb infers that which is sought is nowhere in sight and cannot be found, but on the balance of evidence you and I both KNOW this to be a FALLACY.

This whole charade can be likened to a man lost in the desert facing dehydration and death. An oasis appears just ahead but suddenly, he detours. Why? Because he's been 'conditioned' to believe the water is better in a different oasis (IF the different oasis even exists). After he’s changed direction the unrelenting sun begins to evaporate what always represented his best chance of hope and survival.

Fester,

If religions ceased to exist tomorrow, humanity, morality, and ethics would still prevail because they're based on an inherent human quality - the capacity to recognize what is FAIR and therefore REASONABLE. For example, it is neither FAIR nor REASONABLE to divert a topic from very serious humanitarian and societal issues to scenarios involving trampled chickens.

PS No-one mentioned the bible.

PPS No humans or chickens were trampled during the writing of this response.