Reply #23: Well, you are recognizing only one dimension of the problem.

[HereSince1628]

Certainly the concept of least damage is important within our society. And, the idea of getting some good out of an otherwise "worthless" death is consistent with that principle.

But your argument doesn't address other questions.

I'm not an ethicist but I'll offer issues for you to consider in the interest of trying to put you on a path of interrogation that will improve your argument. If you are going to prevail in your support of embryonic stem cells you must anticipate objections that will be raised against it.

Your argument emphasizes embryos as scientifically/medically valuable salvagable tissue. Many other Americans see "excess" embryos as being something more. Some Americans consider these embryos as individual persons.

I appreciated that others, and apparently you don't. But, you must admit that a sizable fraction of Americans do or can be led to believe that. To prevail in a debate on the topic of harvesting and stem cells salvaged from embryos you do need to be ready with a counter argument.

From the point of view that embryos are people there are obvious ethical questions.

Can a person own another person? You say they should be able to donate their embryos. Do you mean "their" as in that's "their" dog? Ownership of one person by another is arguably slavery. Is it _ever_ right to own someone?

Is it ethical to terminate the life of another whose interest is not protected? As demonstrated by abortion rights the answer in American law is yes within conditions. But ethics are not necessarily a matter of the possibilities provided by law. The ethical nature of terminating another person's life is in controversy.

Is it ethical to terminate a person in order to sell their parts or products? An embryo might be donated but its cell lines might later be traded. Certainly the interest of the pharmaceutical industry in stem cells goes well beyond finding cures. The industries want to sell those cures for profit.