[B][URL=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19486507/site/newsweek/page/0/]Editorial: Parsing the stem-cell arguments[/URL][/B][QUOTE]The way we discuss the big moral questions has got to change. We yell too much and listen too little, and demonize those with whom we merely disagree. We need to practice critical thinking that recognizes good and bad reasons for tough ethical issues. Let's practice some forced reasonableness today on the roiling debate over embryonic stem-cell research....[/QUOTE]He boils it down to a single argument over the legal status of embryos. Are they persons with rights while in the petri dish, or do they require implantation in a viable environment (ie womb) in order to qualify? If they do have rights outside the womb, is it murder to autoclave AI leftovers? If not, then what's the REAL issue here?
He mentions two groups:
-pro-lifers who support stem-cell, because without a womb, they're just cells, not a "potential person" (so implantation is the threshold). these pro-lifers also have no problem with fertility clinics, just abortion once you have a viable fetus.
-pro-choice, who obviously believe there's a line during pregnancy where doing anything before the line is allowable (where the line actually is obviously depends on when you believe a fetus is a "person")
Presumably the other group would then be the "fertilization is the threshold", who would almost have to be against AI as well, since it would involve autoclaving leftover fertilized eggs...