[Deckard]

Yay, no election!

Well, in a nutshell, I'm in favour.

My problem with the argument that embryonic stem cell research devalues human life is that the very phrase 'human life' needs more qualification, but opponents rarely give it.

So what is this devaluing specifically?

I'm not going to attempt to argue against those who claim we're "playing God" - for obvious reasons. I don't wish to turn this into a religious thread by asking which God or gods, how we know that he/she/it/they exist, and how we know what he/she/it/they really want and whether we can really believe that his/her/its/their words in the relevant Holy book are the genuine ones, and not put there by primitive man/the Devil.

And fear of "playing Mother Nature" is little more than fear of going somewhere we've not gone before. A cursory glance through the history of scientific development and the various fears and oppositions that have accompanied pivotal moments should remind us of how selective we are about this reason.

But... I will just touch on something that I hear quite often - that it's because the future life – human or child - will be lost. The potential life.

People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time. It seems to me one of those crazy philosophical arguments where it's almost impossible to find consistency. Unless the parents are having sex 24/7, then they're denying a future life - many future lives in fact. Even by having Child X, they're denying life to potential twins Y and Z. The argument that we shouldn't deny a future life it's child/adulthood seems to me to rest on incredibly shaky ground. Even if by some incredible feat, we turned into 24/7 baby-making machines, the resulting overpopulation would end up denying life - and quality of life - to many.

I know it seems like an over-the-top point to be making, but to me it points to the bankruptcy of this argument, and it's more than a little telling that the only way these people end up truly squaring this dilemma is by invoking the Lord, a higher power, an unquestionable dogma. So every sperm becomes sacred, and the Holy institution of marriage is the only environment in which we can procreate - but we don't think too closely beyond those simple easy-to-grasp rules. ANyway this is moving more on to issues surrounding abortion I guess. My point is that the very idea of opposing embryonic stem cell research based on the notion of it killing a potential life just seems groundless, because a potential life is a potential life, wherever in time it's born - a year away, 10 years or 14 billion years.

When it comes to issues involving the sanctity of human life, suffering is really the only barometer I use, whether it's the supposed/actual suffering of the newborn/foetus/cells, or the suffering of the parents - emotionally or physically. I can honestly say that, morally speaking, no other objections concern me.

should embryonic stem cell research be pursued?

As long as there are benefits, yes.

do we have enough alternative stem cell sources to make embryonic sources obsolete?
do embryonic stem cells provide greater promise that we cannot simply ignore?

Don't know enough about the science to know one way or the other. If embryonic stem cells do provide greater promise, then I would have no problem supporting that, and no moral objection.

should public funding be provided for this research?

I think so, just as public funding is provided for research involving testing on animals, something else that receives vocal opposition from members of that same funding public. I guess if the majority of the public were vehemently opposed to it, then that opposition - and any distress people feel - needs to be taken into account in the moral argument. But I don't believe opposition is anything like that strong. So yes public funding should be used, just as it's used for countless other areas of scientific research.