Yes, that's basically what everyone's arguing over: whether to use an embryo that could possibly become a baby, or to use an embryo that was (and still is) a cluster of cells from the start. Because apparently, human cells cannot be used as experiments but other types of cells can. Such logic, personally, I find it flawed myself, considering that should a single human cell be seen as a "living person" or one that can "become a living person", then what makes us humans superior than other organisms on Earth (other than being more sentient)? In the end, we are contradicting ourselves and ironically, it makes us more of a hypocrite than anything by thinking that only "human cells" should live and other cells or organisms can be experimented on.

And to say that all living cells should be respect and should be given a chance to live is wrong as well. Because if that's the case, forget about medicines or surgeries. Forget about saving lives.

Apparently, most religious groups would go anti on the research because they believed that an embryo is a living thing, a human, a person, and can somehow, some way "think" (note the quotes). Even if it can't think, even if it isn't a person, a baby, a human, it has the "potential chance" of becoming one. And, to defend counter-arguments such as the fact that a cell is a cell, what makes it human, etc, they can further bring up the idea of: "Well, because you didn't give it a chance to become a baby, so it really doesn't have a chance to protest" (something like that anyway). In the end, it's basing on their morality and ideology that brings them into arguments of why stem cell research shouldn't exist in the first place.

Yeah, you see the flaws in that?

__________________

[Valice.Net] [Click to save humanity] [ZU Psychologist] 6,000th post - 2007/02/03