I think the problem is you hold your morals to other people and think they should follow them. People can do as they like whether they are "wrong" or "right", just consequences follow whether they be deemed good or not to us.
I think the problem is you hold your morals to other people and think they should follow them. People can do as they like whether they are "wrong" or "right", just consequences follow whether they be deemed good or not to us.
I think the main thing people for stem cell research (of which I am one) are trying to get across is that it's not a person without the ability to think and feel. Without sentience, we are nothing but lifeless husks that resemble a grown human being. The embryos being used for stem cell research have no such intelligence and sentience, and because they are created outside the womb and are never meant to develop the question is should they be afforded human rights. I and others say no since they can't possibly develop into a grown human. That's our feelings about it. As far as we're concerned it's no different than killing bacteria or other basic cellular life forms. For those that think it is human life and should be afforded human rights, that's great. You have your beliefs and stick to them. You're no more right than we are.
And I just have to say it: saying that animal life is below human life is hypocritical. Don't get me wrong, I eat meat and I enjoy it. I accept it as the natural order of the world. Not because we're superior, but because in nature, predators eat other animals, and thanks to our intelligence, we humans are just about as good a predator as they come (even if we really just raise animals for the slaughter now). But if you want to tell me we're better than animals, and that killing embryos is worse then killing a cow or shooting a deer, do me a favor; get a cat, raise it for several years, then tell me if you really think animals don't think and feel similarly to a human. We aren't better than animals in any meaningful way. Most of them think, feel and are sentient just like us. Hell, they even suffer emotional trauma like we do. Any one who's ever had a pet would probably agree.
Let's examine this logically, for a change:
First off, the theory that "human life is sacred." What makes human life better than any other forms of life? It all boils down to our sentience. Now, this doesn't mean that a baby is worthless until it becomes able to think, but that until a baby can live on its own, it is, biologically speaking, nothing more than a tumor. This would logically prohibit "partial birth abortions," as by the third trimester the baby is highly likely to be able to live on its own, outside of the mother. Until that point, objectively, it is a parasite.
The "all human life is sacred" theory. Why is an embryo more alive than sperm? It would biologically be less alive, since sperm has basic instincts and is capable of reactions. Following this line of thought, one must logically conclude that birth control is murder and that all males must ejaculate into a test tube to be able to save all the sperm for future impregnations.
The "all life except that killed for food is sacred" theory. What is eating? An action meant to futher ones own survival. Is there a moral difference between drinking water and eating a deer? No. Is there a moral difference between searching for shelter when its snowing and eating a rabbit? No. Is there a moral difference between attempting to wrap a wound in a bandage and eating a bear? No. Therefore, is there any moral difference between researching a cure to save lives(as long as it doesn't kill other lives - as I've shown in the above two paragraphs that it doesn't) and eating a hamburger? No.
No matter what stand-point you come from, if you think through it logically, there is nothing wrong with stem cell research.
Ok - thanks for the relies all.
ViVi22: It seems that you really like animals - which is great. I do belive very much that animals are and should be important to us and should be respected.. As I said. No I have had dogs (not a huge cat fan sorry) and I do feel bad when they need to be put down. I know what you mean by animals are just as important as human beings. I don't like eating veil either as I belive that even an animal reared for slaughter should still be given a mature life. Plus as I said earlier - it is my religious belief that we were given domain over animals. I don't expect anyone to share this belief. Note: having domain and being all supreme to the animals is different. Domain could point us as caretakers or slaughters. I see it as caretakers.
There is a lot of sedimental attatchment to pets owed by thier owners. We find ourselves attatched as compasionate human beings. I praise people with pets, and think that they are truly great people to share thier love with animals and to rear a friend out of a "beast". What I wonder - is how those same compasionates, whom have such a regaurd for animal life can disbane human life so easily. Even it they are "just cells". Take that same cat of yours and harvest her eggs- create a cat embryo - and kill it, take a few cells, then throw them in the kitten away.Does it still seem ok to do so?
Rastilin: Your over intelectual analasis seems great on the surface, but knowlage tells us a different story that the very facts that you have implied:
embryos do have reactions and feel pain. Sperm are not considered life as they do not fit the scientific criteria for life. Namley reproduction. Science aside, it just doesn't even sound right that a sperm is more alive than the life form it creates with the egg?Originally Posted by rastilin
This was already covered as well in an earlier post.Following this line of thought, one must logically conclude that birth control is murder and that all males must ejaculate into a test tube to be able to save all the sperm for future impregnations.
Is there a basis for comparasin? Yes you can eat meat and protect yourself in sensual ways. Then to pull in the last sentance which supposedly vindicates the situation with an "easy answer" is a left fielder really. You sound very intelectual, but the post really doesn't have enough back bone and seems that you give your self too much credit as the last line indicates:
Have a good day all,
Bipper
Bipper
Well, the problem with this is pretty simple. To follow this logic to its conclusion, if a person were to become dependant on others, his life has no "sacredness" anymore. What you are argueing in favor of is a utilatarian view of human lives. This leads to a lot of problems.
First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.
So you see, rationally, if the embryo/fetus has no value as a human, neither do the others I mentioned. So to be logically consistant, under this view, you must also allow for the "post-birth abortions" of the groups I mentioned above. That doesn't happen though. We protect the disabled, newborns, and the elderly.
Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.
Now for the parasite issue. Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.
It seems pretty irrational to suggest that a fetus at 20 weeks is "not a person", when the same being, if it was born prematurely, would be a "person". If a woman were to kill a premature baby at 20 weeks gestation, she would be charged with murder. If she goes to Planned Parenthood, a fetus at the exact same age can be legally killed. That would be similar to saying that people who live in New York can be killed at will, while people living in any other area are protected. It isn't rational to base a person's "worth" based on location.
No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.
No, there are are very good reasons to object to stem cell research. embryos are completely distinct being from their mother, and are therefore human. Like millions of other humans, they depend on others for care and protection. The reason that ESC research is acceptable is that embryos have been defined as nonhumans. They are still humans, and deserve the same protections as any other humans. Unless you are willing to take the position that it is perfectly acceptable to kill human beings for research, it is irrational to say that ESC research is acceptable.
What you are relying on is an external definition of human, which can (and has) be altered to whatever the society decides it should be. This is irrational because it isn't based on anything other than what your society feels is right, not based on a principle that can be applied consistantly. The human that is considered human today may not be considered so tomarrow.
Excellent points.Well, the problem with this is pretty simple. To follow this logic to its conclusion, if a person were to become dependant on others, his life has no "sacredness" anymore. What you are argueing in favor of is a utilatarian view of human lives. This leads to a lot of problems.
First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.
So you see, rationally, if the embryo/fetus has no value as a human, neither do the others I mentioned. So to be logically consistant, under this view, you must also allow for the "post-birth abortions" of the groups I mentioned above. That doesn't happen though. We protect the disabled, newborns, and the elderly.
Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.
Now for the parasite issue. Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.
It seems pretty irrational to suggest that a fetus at 20 weeks is "not a person", when the same being, if it was born prematurely, would be a "person". If a woman were to kill a premature baby at 20 weeks gestation, she would be charged with murder. If she goes to Planned Parenthood, a fetus at the exact same age can be legally killed. That would be similar to saying that people who live in New York can be killed at will, while people living in any other area are protected. It isn't rational to base a person's "worth" based on location.
No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.
No, there are are very good reasons to object to stem cell research. embryos are completely distinct being from their mother, and are therefore human. Like millions of other humans, they depend on others for care and protection. The reason that ESC research is acceptable is that embryos have been defined as nonhumans. They are still humans, and deserve the same protections as any other humans. Unless you are willing to take the position that it is perfectly acceptable to kill human beings for research, it is irrational to say that ESC research is acceptable.
What you are relying on is an external definition of human, which can (and has) be altered to whatever the society decides it should be. This is irrational because it isn't based on anything other than what your society feels is right, not based on a principle that can be applied consistantly. The human that is considered human today may not be considered so tomarrow.
Anyway, while I believe that embryonic stem-cell use is morally wrong, I'll skip over that at least until someone has answered Gnostic Yevon's post above. In the meantime, I'll focus on the practical aspects of the situation. Is anyone wondering why the researchers working on embryonic stem-cells are asking for government money when there are all those private investors out there? The reason is that private investors want nothing to do with embryonic stem-cell use, and not just because of the moral problems. Embryonic stem-cell research has been nothing more than a long line of failures. "Theoretically", embryonic stem-cells are more versatile and useful than adult stem-cells. Yet the only successful stem-cell work has been with adult stem-cells. Still, the scientists working on the problem stick with their theories and try again and again to get embryonic stem-cells to work. Why do they do this, do you ask? Basically because they are looking for an excuse to make abortion more acceptable. If they actually cared about what they claim they care about (the results of their research), they would have followed the advice of their 2nd grade science teachers and changed their theories when every test they've done has proven them wrong.
My friend Delzethin is currently running a GoFundMe account to pay for some extended medical troubles he's had. He's had chronic issues and lifetime troubles that have really crippled his career opportunities, and he's trying to get enough funding to get back to a stable medical situation. If you like his content, please support his GoFundMe, or even just contribute to his Patreon.
He can really use a hand with this, and any support you can offer is appreciated.
Yes - i think killing is bad. I can't jsut say "Oh gee, Killing is bad, but since he is doing what is right by him i think it is ok"I think the problem is you hold your morals to other people and think they should follow them. People can do as they like whether they are "wrong" or "right", just consequences follow whether they be deemed good or not to us.
Gnostic and Sky, thanks for the support- Come very well written posts both informational. Thank you for keeping the debate around what has been said, and taking the time to write complete posts.
Bipper
This is a bad example because they can do one simple thing - think for themselves. Our physical ability is not what makes humans better than other animals.First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.
I don't understand this point. When HIV infects a cell, it uses the cell's DNA to create new virus DNA, which then becomes "unique." So smurfing what?Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.
Yes, which brings about a crucial analogy: they are parasites by the choice of the giver. The giver can stop paying for her mentally handicapped uncle's food anytime, because it's HER money, and her life. Therefore, logically, the giver in a pregnancy should be able to stop giving of her life at any point.Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.
So even if you accept the absurd relationship between the physically handicapped and fetuses, it still doesn't work.
And what makes being a human special and valuable? Again, back to that. I define it objectively - you don't.No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.
Yet again more complete bull. There is no logical, objective way to justify such nonsense.
Nothing at all makes being a human being special. So go shoot yourself in the head and rid the world of your egocentric, stuck-up attitude. Oh, wait, YOUR being a human IS special, right?This is a bad example because they can do one simple thing - think for themselves. Our physical ability is not what makes humans better than other animals.First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.
I don't understand this point. When HIV infects a cell, it uses the cell's DNA to create new virus DNA, which then becomes "unique." So smurfing what?Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.
Yes, which brings about a crucial analogy: they are parasites by the choice of the giver. The giver can stop paying for her mentally handicapped uncle's food anytime, because it's HER money, and her life. Therefore, logically, the giver in a pregnancy should be able to stop giving of her life at any point.Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.
So even if you accept the absurd relationship between the physically handicapped and fetuses, it still doesn't work.
And what makes being a human special and valuable? Again, back to that. I define it objectively - you don't.No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.
Yet again more complete bull
At least the embryo has a chance to grow into a contributing member of society.
My friend Delzethin is currently running a GoFundMe account to pay for some extended medical troubles he's had. He's had chronic issues and lifetime troubles that have really crippled his career opportunities, and he's trying to get enough funding to get back to a stable medical situation. If you like his content, please support his GoFundMe, or even just contribute to his Patreon.
He can really use a hand with this, and any support you can offer is appreciated.
No human is any more special than the other(what makes its special is completely man-made), that doesnt mean we go out and kill ourselves, no one needs to be special to live. I agree with Rast to the point that if you consider an embryo to be human enough, where does it end? Egg and sperm too?
All i know is that theres many different viewpoints, but i still say that since its most likely going to not be human or live long, better to save those that already are in trouble. That and i cannot imagine myself living thinking i am born from a lab.
Actually, it stops at the point that it has completely seperate human DNA.
Yeah, if you kill it it is not likely to live long. Surprising how that works.
Also, despite previous complaints, the embryos are there by choice as well. If you didn't want them, you shouldn't have been having sex. You might be surprised at how well abstinence works at preventing pregnancy.
Also, unlike the parasites referred to earlier, the embryo is there for a limited time. It'll be over in about 9 months, and then you can put the child up for adoption. You knew that there was a risk that pregnancy would be a result of having sex. You chose to have sex anyway. Live with the consequences of your actions.
My friend Delzethin is currently running a GoFundMe account to pay for some extended medical troubles he's had. He's had chronic issues and lifetime troubles that have really crippled his career opportunities, and he's trying to get enough funding to get back to a stable medical situation. If you like his content, please support his GoFundMe, or even just contribute to his Patreon.
He can really use a hand with this, and any support you can offer is appreciated.
Putting kids up for adoption seems quite irresponsible not only in having sex but the care of the child too. I am pretty sure that while they could put it up for adoption, they also dont have to abhere and might actually donate the embryo if they so wish, no one can stop that really. Plus this has NOTHING to do with having sex itself, more of a couple that cannot conceive without going to a fertility clinic.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htmStem cells can be extracted from very young human embryos -- typically from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures at fertility clinics. There are currently about 100,000 surplus embryos in storage.
Lots of surplus embryos only. Mixed sources say that they can either stay usable for long while, or they arent able to be used soon after. Either way you cant keep all those embryos there, sure you can store them, but eventually if theres more donors than people wanting babies then it will overflow. That, and are we also to keep them and hope maybe there is a chance they will be used? They could stay in the tank forever while someone is dying a slow agonzing disease.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_inco.htmThose embryos that are not preserved in liquid nitrogen will inevitably die. They have no chance of living or developing into a newborn. Many clinics simply discard or destroy them. Some embryos are simply flushed down a sink drain while alive. Some are transferred to a medical waste bin where they are later incinerated, while alive. Some simply expose the embryos to the air and let them die naturally; this normally takes up to four days. Still other embryos are donated for research and experimentation, for personnel training, or for diagnostic purposes. At this stage in their development, they fortunately have no brain, no central nervous system, no pain sensors, no consciousness, no awareness of their environment. Thus, no matter by which method they are disposed, they will feel no discomfort.
As stated here there is no chance of them living should there be excess embryos and/or theres no storage or whatever. Many embryos die needlessly every day, so we are to just let that happen? Or maybe we can actually use the embryos that are going to be disposed of anyway, to something that can used? That and they cant feel pain.
If you want to question the source you can, i just find it to be..a little less biased i guess. If you can provide other sources i will look at them.
Yea, there's not a moral issue with embryonic stem cells any more than there is issue with sperm banks and fertilization clinics. using leftover stem cells for research is just finding a more efficient use for what would otherwise just be waste.
Not really. Altheimers patients aren't very sentient. Newborn babies can't think for themselves at all. And you still have the same problem. What is the cutoff for "thinking?" What IQ level do I need to have in order to be considered a human? If it's an IQ of 5, then what about a person scoring a 4 or a 3? And I'm not even sure how you'd measure the intelligence of a fetus. The growth of a fetus is continuous. What may have been true of a fetus or a newborn 10 minutes ago may no longer be true.
The point being that in order to have an embryo or fetus not be a human, you must use some artificial cut off -- living in the Uterus, arbitrary IQ level, etc. The problem with an arbitrary cut-off is that it can be changed. If I can set the IQ at 5, why couldn't someone come up later and say "Naah, 5 is too low. let's double it to ten". Or change the test from "thinking" (which is nebulous and hard to measure) to "speaking"?
The virus isn't a new human. The baby is not only not its mother's tissue, but a new human individual. The point is that you can't justify abortion by saying that it's like a tumor, because it isn't a tumor. It's a developing human individual. This argument is apples and oranges.I don't understand this point. When HIV infects a cell, it uses the cell's DNA to create new virus DNA, which then becomes "unique." So smurfing what?Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.
What happens to a mother who suddenly decides to stop feeding her baby? She gets charged with child neglect and child endangerment. She loses custody of said newborn (and usually loses any other children in her care). In other words the state protects newborns (and handicapped, and the elderly). It isn't as though a mother can walk away without caring for her children and have no consequences.Yes, which brings about a crucial analogy: they are parasites by the choice of the giver. The giver can stop paying for her mentally handicapped uncle's food anytime, because it's HER money, and her life. Therefore, logically, the giver in a pregnancy should be able to stop giving of her life at any point.Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.
So even if you accept the absurd relationship between the physically handicapped and fetuses, it still doesn't work.
Fine then, if human life isn't special, then at least be consistant and remove legal protections for everyone. But as the abortion issue is right now, the embryos have no protections at all, while other groups in very similar circumstances are protected.And what makes being a human special and valuable? Again, back to that. I define it objectively - you don't.No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.
I suppose this is where our philosophies part. I assume that a human is valuable until it is proven not to be.
But as I've pointed out, you aren't being logical and objective. Your definitions are arbitrary. Drawing an arbitrary line and saying at this point the embryo is worthy of protection isn't logical, because there is nothing special in that second of the embryos life. Another person could pick a different threshold for personhood, and it would be no more or less logical than the one that you've picked.Yet again more complete bull
But those are actual individuals, whereas a fetus is only a potential. A fetus is not actual human life, no matter which way you see it. Clearly, the closer the potential gets to the actual means the more restrictions that can be put on what one can do with the potential, but it is still a potential.
No, it isn't. It's pretty much a part of the mother's body. You can justify abortion because an embryo has no rights.The virus isn't a new human. The baby is not only not its mother's tissue, but a new human individual.
The law protects newborns because they are an individual, actual being. They are not an embryo.What happens to a mother who suddenly decides to stop feeding her baby? She gets charged with child neglect and child endangerment. She loses custody of said newborn (and usually loses any other children in her care). In other words the state protects newborns (and handicapped, and the elderly). It isn't as though a mother can walk away without caring for her children and have no consequences.
I do, too, to let you know. I value the mother's choice (and really, there is no life without choice), and to make abortions illegal is to promote nothing but sadness and misery - an unwanted pregnancy is just bad at all rounds - for the parents who don't want the child and is sacrificing their life for it, and for the child who is unloved and unwanted.I suppose this is where our philosophies part. I assume that a human is valuable until it is proven not to be.
This is much like the firearms debate. People can jump at a chance to make them illegal, but honestly, we can't - that would be so beyond anti-freedom I'm scared to think of a world where I can't own a gun. However, we can debate the rules of owning a gun, where to carry it to, which weapons, etc.
Likewise, the abortion debate is similar. Abortion is not immoral. To follow the same logic, then all surgery should be outlawed. Human life starts at birth - before that, it is only a potential life. If you want to, we can define the rules of abortion (for example, I am highly against third-trimester abortions, for obvious reasons), but to deny the woman a right to her body is to perpetuate misery.
As for the topic at hand (stem cell research), I suppose you can gather my argument there.
Posting Permissions
:temigi: 