ITT it's stem cell research debate!

I don't see anything wrong with harvesting dead human parasites and processing them for research material. After all, cancer cell lineages have been in use for decades, so what's wrong with using some other endogenous parasite for research?

pointless verbal dysentery of the faux altruistic type has no place in science. pointless religious and moral dribblings over points of contention that thusfar no one has made any hard conclusions in is just that, pointless.

would you waste a year, a decade, a century proving that these biological constructs that are nothing more then unpropogated lumps of non-differentiated tissue at that level that are going to be sacrificed anyway are alive in the psychological, emotional or moral sense or put these findings to good work saving millions of lives that might one day even be yours or the life of someone you love?

i'm not without sympathy to what some consider "innocent" lives, but we're speaking of things that are no more alive or self aware then your little finger versus millions of people who Are aware, alive, suffering and dying while this quasi-religious waffling goes on. i'm a proponent of just because you Can do something doesn't mean you Should, but there stands an oppertunity to do something no religion, no political body and no altruistic debate has ever managed; save hundreds of thousands or millions of lives. why not take the chance and advance the science knowing that one day these cells can be cultivated without harvesting of this type?

I agree. Lets see what's here and then we have to fight about. I have no answer about the life of 3-celled zygotes, most of which will get flushed down the toilet, but the ability to save a million people is definately good.

Since I can't prove the zygotes have a worth equal to a mans, I say save the people. It seems like the best "default" answer. You don't sentance people to death unless you have a damn damn good reason.