Well there is a right or wrong answer. Whether we can know for certain is altogether different. The conclusions are preclusive. either they are human life, with human souls, or they are not. Both conclusions cannot co-exist. So yes there is a right or wrong answer.

i'm a human. my body consists of about 10-100 trillion cells (give or take an order). you remove one cell from my body, and i'm still who i am, my identity and feeling of self-awareness hasn't changed. remove another cell and i am still myself. remove another... and another... and another... and i am still myself. keep removing my cells untill only one remains. is that single cell still me? was it still me, when there were ten cells? or a hundred?

And yet it's all relative. You are nothing but a clump of cells, that in the scheme of the universe is little bigger than a pinhead.
</font>[/QUOTE]No. You may consider yourself a clump of cells, I don't. I am a spiritual being that happens to be temporarily residing in a body. When, why and how I joined with my body is paramount to my perspective on the issue but in respect to the moratorium I'll leave it at that.

Like I said, emotionlistic hyperbole doesn't faze me, even if repeated over and over. I don't buy variations of Pascal's wager either.

So your view is dependent on your spiritual belief then? Mine isn't. Mine is an independent position that allows for ERROR on my part as to when the soul enters the body. That is the key you're missing. In affecting other peoples lives, you have to allow for an error in your own position. Medically, life starts at fetilisation, and kicks in a new stage once it clings to the uteral wall. If an when there is a soul is irrelevent.

You on the other hand, are playing a gamble that your own spiritual beliefs are right, and determining ANOTHERS life based on your own view.

Interesting.

So your view is dependent on your spiritual belief then? Mine isn't. Mine is an independent position that allows for ERROR on my part as to when the soul enters the body. That is the key you're missing. In affecting other peoples lives, you have to allow for an error in your own position. Medically, life starts at fetilisation, and kicks in a new stage once it clings to the uteral wall. If an when there is a soul is irrelevent.

You on the other hand, are playing a gamble that your own spiritual beliefs are right, and determining ANOTHERS life based on your own view.

Interesting. </font>[/QUOTE]Curious, I fail to see how I am affecting other peoples lives or determining another's life based on the criteria offered.

My perspective includes consideration of my spiritual beleifs. A person with true convictions in this regard does not just turn them off or ignore them when it is topically convienent.

Concerning the incomplete medical defintions you have provided- Considering the stem-cell embryos will be cloned and will never cling to the uteral wall it seems to me those defintions of hwne life "begins" cannot be applied with accuracy.

On another note- The sperm and egg that merge to create an embryo in the non-cloning circumstances are also "alive" So life doesnt exactly 'begin' in accordance to those defintions as provided.

I do not neglect the medical facts concerning this issue out of preference to my metaphysical beleifs. I simply disagree with any interpretation of the facts that puts using and destroying cloned embryos for stem cell research in even remotely the same catagory as murder.

As far as the gamble claim goes- I continue to reject that as a false argument, akin to Pascal's wager. Its an emotion-based appeal that promises damning consequences for not complying to a veiwpoint, only these damning consequences are unfounded, unsubstantiated and rooted in subjective beleif- not facts. Its alot like continuing to beleive in Santa Claus, while lacking any proof of his existence, out of fear of not recieving presents. This vewipoint also forces the issue in a rigid black/white right/wrong duality with no room for the grey area. I could go on, sufficed to say I have various reasons to reject the gambling claim. Repeating it over and over is not going to sway me.

[quote]Originally posted by Donut:

Quote:

I take it that you are using befuddled as a euphemism for ignorant in this case. As far as I know the US is the only country in the world that executes murderers.

1. No, I meant befuddled as in "unable to understand such a morally STUPID conundrum and hypocricy."

2. Nothing wrong with being the only one that's right.

Sorry, in no mood to mince words today.

Nah, the following countries are also right:

AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE.

(Courtesy of Amnesty Int., data for 2003, all these are for 'ordinary crimes', non-war related crimes I suppose)

[ 08-16-2004, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

I didn't say I turn them off. You read words I didn't write.

When making a policy that affects people other than myself, I cannot allow my beliefs to dictate the fundamental nature of the policy.

If I am affecting people without the belief in an afterlife for example, I must work to ensure that the quality of THIS life is high. That what is experienced now is enjoyable and fulfilling. Whether there is an after life is irrelevent or not. I can try and persuade people of one, sure, but making social policy decisions that rely on such a belief is not the way to go in my book.

If there is a soul, and when it enters is speculation. It is belief. We scientifically know when human life starts. We should be declaring life to start when we scientifically know it does, not when we speculate about a soul that not everyone believes we have anyway.

It's called CONSENSUS. Both science and religion can agree that life has started at that point. Fertilisation is a clear dividing line. You are advocating some vague line resultant on your spiritual beliefs.

Hope you're confident of them.

Initial brain activity would be another clear dividing line. As would the first heartbeat. Taking the first breath was the traditional dividing line for centuries.

You talk of vagueness, but for me "life" is too vague to be giving something all the benefits of being human. A planarium is alive. A virus is arguably alive. A sperm cell is "life."

[ 08-16-2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I didn't say I turn them off. You read words I didn't write.
</font>[/QUOTE]No you didn't and no I didn't. That statement wasn't a direct response to something you wrote!
Me neither, which is why I am pro-choice. Freedom of choice in the matter allows the other people to make choice based on thier own beliefs, not mine.
England has chosen to allow embryo cloning for stem cell research, yet other places have chosen not to allow such research. Choice, not a blanket policy of prohibition allows for a full diversity of perspective. A woman who is against abortion has the choice not to have one, a woman who is not against abortion has the choice to have one. In either case my beleifs in the matter are irrelevant.
There is no consensus between religion and science on the matter of when human "life" begins. There is not even a consensus amongst religion. Science simply describes the stages of cellular development and there is no consensus amongst all religion at which stage life begins.
In your opinion. Some think it is only after the embryo embedds in the uteral wall. Other opinions declare the clear line is the moment sperm meets egg! Yet others think it is 7 weeks, past the embryotic stage and in the beginning of the fetus stage. Another perspective is at three months, during the fetus stage, when development is fuller. And so on and so on. Just to show how subjective it is for everyone: Some folks think it is even before conception!

Truly objective science doesn't advocate any of these various stages for the purposes of this debate. Science simply documents them all ( excpet for the pre-conception one!)
You are the one reading word I did not write. I simply advocate choice of perspective. I fully support science. I have no need to twist science to serve my perspective either, like so many do in idealogical discussions like these.