[Deckard]

Originally Posted by cacophony

for me religion has nothing to do with it. god has nothing to do with it. and it doesn't necessarily rely on the argument that you're throwing away potential life because, as was stated earlier in the thread, stem cells from aborted fetuses would be discarded anyway.

i don't need a god figure to tell me to respect the creation of human life. i'm pro-choice but i'm better described as reluctantly pro-choice. i'm pro-choice because of the necessity to women's healtrh and human rights, not because i feel embryos are just silly little cellular clusters to be discarded without remorse. i see a fertilized egg is as special thing that would, if a billion and a half crucial developmental moments happen correctly, develop into a unique human being.

I see what you're saying, however this is where I think my position splits away from yours. Instinctively, purely in terms of feelings, I share that same difference in how I feel about a fertilized egg as compared to an unfertilized one, between one that's closer to a human life and one that's less close - when the sperm and egg still have some distance between them. But the question is, why should that distance matter? Why even should the difference in complexity matter? There's still probability involved in the creation of the separate cells themselves, even before conception. Even that is remarkable. Why should the moment of conception itself be the defining moment that separates moral from immoral on an issue like embryonic stem cell research, if not for the sense of destroying a potential life by destroying the process that may lead to it?

From what I understand of what you're saying, the factor of 'potential life' does seem to be what this boils down to when you refer to the fertilized egg developing into a unique human being. I can identify with the feeling that, once we're past the stage of conception, we're interfering with a process that has already beaten many odds and is on the way to developing into something we can emotionally relate to - and ultimately ends up with an emotional state of its own. Something that most of us would agree IS sacred - a human being. But of course it's still not an actual human being yet, and in reality the only thing we're respecting is the sheer leaps of probability that have taken place to get as far as fertilization, the wonderfulness(?) of the fact of creation, and the potential of human life at the end of it. Appreciating those things is fine, but what does it mean to apply a moral distinction to them?

Another question might be: should the human life that will result from a currently separate individual egg and sperm cell be deemed less important than the human life that will result from a fertilized egg a second or a week or a month later when they join up? Sure, the fertilized egg is more advanced and closer to the stage of human life, and has undergone that whole chance encounter of egg meeting sperm - but is that a reason to assign it greater protection/sanctity, and use it as a measurement for judging whether an issue like human embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable?

Here's what I think. As I see it, the line we're inclined to draw is essentially an arbitrary one based on how we instinctively feel ie. that interfering with one stage of complexity/development feels acceptable, while the other just feels wrong, or as you say, feels like cannibalism. And while that feeling might be perfectly natural and understandable given the unique status we afford the moment of conception, when you think about it, drawing a line at one particular moment of complexity, past one particular set of low-probability events, of the sperm and egg having no distance between them rather than having distance – well it seems somewhat irrational to use any of this as a moral yardstick without knowing fully why these things matter – and why going further back in the development process, they don't.

Originally Posted by cacophony

now, i realize there's something contradictory in my view because i also support organ donation, which is essentially the same thing. however, with organ donation the donor had a choice in the matter before death. that's where i draw my moral line,

The difference I'd draw is that most organ donors are human beings with awareness of themselves, their needs and wishes. An embryo, to my mind, is not - it's not that it's unable to communicate its wishes; it has no wishes – about anything. The only way I see the relevance of the 'embryo not having a choice' is if we view it through the prism of being the potential human life not having a hindsight choice – and as I wrote earlier, I don't see the 'potential human life' angle as one that can be consistently kept to. For me at this point in time, it really does only come down to the issue of the amount of suffering experienced, by whoever (and yes, I can see myself sliding back into the topic of abortion here!)

Originally Posted by cacophony

what's curious to me is that people use the in vitro example as though it's somehow a good thing, and therefore the argument for the discarded embryos' use in research is unrefutable. what makes no sense to me is how anyone can be pro-life but not against the in-vitro process of fertilizing and discarding eggs. it is essentially the same moral dilema.

I agree, it is an odd position.

Originally Posted by cacophony

i am uncomfortable with the idea of my tax money going to support this research when private funding is available. i wouldn't expect to impose my view on the general public and try to block the research completely, but i would prefer not to be part of the funding and support.

That's absolutely fair enough, and if enough people feel likewise, I'd say that's a good argument for blocking it, and for supporters like me to just accept that.

Honestly, I'm probably sounding more dispassionate and detached than I actually am when it comes to the wonder of life. Believe me I absolutely share that wonder (and not just human either – you should have seen me when my cat got pregnant!) though I can appreciate that you feel it far more deeply when you experience procreation first hand, so that will give you an insight that I will never have. All the views above are obviously what I feel in the absence of that insight - rightly or wrongly.