[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

Deckard, your argument is just as or more circular than mine. You keep going back to 'well, sperm and unfertilized eggs are sacred because they could potentially make life like an embryo could', but you completely ignore or throw away the fact that an embryo is alive with an existentialistic 'what is life anyway?' argument.

well, let's consult dictionary.com and wikipedia. these are both fairly secular resources.

dictionary.com:
life
/laɪf/
noun, plural lives /laɪvz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyvz]
adjective
–noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

let's do a checklist:

unfertilized eggs:
1. growth through metabolism? no.
2. reproduction? no.
3. adaptation to environment? no.

embryo:
1. growth through metabolism? yes.
2. reproduction? yes.
3. adaptation to environment? this one is iffy; an egg cannot survive outside of the womb, but a grown human cannot survive in subzero temperatures, either. so there are differing conditions in the sensitivity of the person at different stages of life.

wikipedia:
Life is a state that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms. Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally. A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy. In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).

unfertilized eggs:
1. growth and reproduction? no.
2. communicate and adapt to environment? no.
3. feeds on negative entropy? no.

embryo:
1. growth and reproduction? yes.
2. communicate and adapt to environment? yes.
3. feeds on negative entropy? yes.

I agree with you about the differences between an embryo and an unfertilized egg in terms of factors like growth through metabolism, and how we typically classify life. There's no disputing that.

I disagree that these factors - passing these thresholds - should necessarily introduce a moral threshold to a topic like stem cell research. If there is no suffering by anyone, I genuinely don't see why the loss of any 'potential' child/adult life should be a hindrance.

But then I readily admit I don't share the notion of sanctity. Wonder, yes. Awe, yes. Beauty, yes. Sanctity? No.