Changes

YES for stem cells.  Allow me to explain:

YES for stem cells.  Allow me to explain:

*You are a killer.  By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp.  By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants).  By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash.  And you are shameless about it.  Jesus condones killing.  His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered '''en masse''' to make bread.  Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected.  Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important.  After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life.

*You are a killer.  By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp.  By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants).  By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash.  And you are shameless about it.  Jesus condones killing.  His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered ''en masse'' to make bread.  Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected.  Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important.  After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life.

*Why is human life so valuable?  Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable.  Why?  One could say that human life is valuable because it is human.  That, however, is an arbitrary distinction.  The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties.  Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have.  Here are a few:

*Why is human life so valuable?  Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable.  Why?  One could say that human life is valuable because it is human.  That, however, is an arbitrary distinction.  The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties.  Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have.  Here are a few:

::::The ability to feel pain

::::The ability to feel pain

*But what about God?  God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary.  Besides, how do you '''know''' that God does value them?  After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him.  And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above.

*But what about God?  God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary.  Besides, how do you ''know'' that God does value them?  After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him.  And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above.

*But don't embryos have potential?  Why stop at embryos?  Why even stop at conception?  By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder.  '''Potential''' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target.

*But don't embryos have potential?  Why stop at embryos?  Why even stop at conception?  By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder.  ''Potential'' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target.

*But it's '''just not right'''?!  If you have any other objections, please post.

*But it's ''just not right''?!  If you have any other objections, please post.

*Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative.  To research stem cells.

*Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative.  To research stem cells.