Also, you mentioned that I'm against one kind of killing and you're against another kind, comparing this research to wars; IF the war is just (I'm not commenting on any current wars, but WWII was certainly just), and you're careful not to kill innocent civilians, then those deaths are NOT of innocent people and therefore NOT the same as killing innocent unborn children. I felt I should clarify that because people often see it as a contradiction that someone could be pro-life yet in favor of a war or capital punishment; the point is that we are pro-innocent-life, which I thought would go without saying (but then common sense is anything but common).

The "whomever" that you need to convince would be your elected representatives. If that doesnt work, then you elect someone who does agree with you, the same as I do for any issue.

And since you asked, I am one of the growing number of scientists that believe in biblical creation (or intelligent design).

How can I convince whomever to stop using MY tax money to build bombs to blow up (Kill) innocent people?
=
I understand that this blog is about stem cell research but, your platform is a moral one. You find one type of killing wrong and I another. The difference being stam cell research is for the common good and, in my opinion, far outweighs the blood for whatever war we are embroiled in over in the middle east.

Do you believe in intellegent design of Darwin? Just curious..

It might clarify my argument of comparing to nazi research if I said that both cases involve killing an innocent human being, rather than saying that both kill a human being against their will (that way it doesn't matter how you define "will").

I do protest starving children, healthcare inadaquacies, unjust wars, etc; the topic of this article was embryo research.

I understand that these embryos are donated and that they would be discarded otherwise. Therefore the main problem I have is with fertility clinics that are allowed to discard them in the first place, but again, this article was about the embryo research. It all boils down to when you define human life beginning. Currently it's birth, which is meaningless and arbitrary. Science says it's conception/fertilization, which is what I believe.

You want me to give evidence that a "ball of cells" has a will; I would counter for you to tell me how a newborn child has a will. How does a newborn child have a will when a 38 week unborn child does not? Where do you define the beginning of a "will"? Because you can't actually answer this, then how do you know when it's ok to kill a baby? And baby is the correct term to use: baby="an extremely young child", child="an unborn or recently born person", from www.m-w.com. Terms like zygote, embryo, fetus, are all sub-categories which specify what kind of baby.

I doubt any of this would change until a constitutional amendment defining life at conception is passed, but until then I don't think its unreasonable to stop federal taxpayer money from supporting potentially unethical research. Again, if it really is so promising, then why can't any researchers raise money from private companies, non-profit organizations (like those that raise money for cancer research, etc)? That way if you have no ethical objection to the research then you can contribute your own money. In fact, why don't you start organizing a fund-drive for embryonic stem cell research. You'd be the first one, since everyone else seems to think federal taxpayer money is the only conceivable source for funding.

truth,

ES cell research is underfunded. It's progress is stymied by the moral/religious folks such as yourself. I just wish you would protest other moral issues with such vigor such as: the war: starving children: healthcare inadaquacies...

If embryonic cells are so "promising", then why have all the successes so far been from adult cells and none from embryonic cells??
*
This is just more nonsense for people to play around with and to suck money from the federal trough.
*

I think you need to understand that the cells used are DONATED from fertilization clinics. They are literally balls of 100-200 cells. They ARE NOT A BABY. Most often, couples go to these clinics for various reasons, a main reason being to test the cells for genetic diseases, and they choose to either DISCARD (throw away) the unused cells, or donate them to science.
+
If you cannot see why your constant comparison to the holocaust is both disturbing and disrespectful, I ask you to research ALL of the experiments performed during the holocaust on LIVING HUMAN BEINGS and the motivations behind them. The research being done with embryonic stem cells is motivated to find cures for very real diseases that affect millions of people. Please, explain to victims of Hodgkins, Cancer, and Parkinsons disease that we cannot continue to use the most promising (yes, embryonic stem cells are the most promising cells used for a variety of reasons) method because in doing so we are behaving like Nazis.
+
I respect your stance, and believe me mine is not fueled by a deep love for the atrocities carried out by the Nazis, but I do think you are a bit misguided. There are very real atrocities taking place in the world right now. Humans are being slaughtered all over the world for a variety of insane reasons. Why are you so against the use of a ball of cells that wil either be used to help find a cure for millions of people, or thrown away?
+
I understand that you will automatically counter with "a ball of cells is a life", right? Well, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, that ball of cells (or life) comes from a source that will either discard it or donate it to help find cures. You decide which is more beneficial.

Evil?
What evidence do you have supporting that the embryos even have a "will" at this point?
I guarantee you that you'd be singing a different tune if your son/daughter were inflicted with a disease that would be provided with a cure because of Stem Cell Research.

Yes I know they are fertilized in-vitro; what difference does that make? It doesn't matter where it is fertilized, it matters that it is fertilized. Apparently you don't think its a human being after fertilization; sorry but science is against you. Any other "defining moment" of humanity (birth, breathing, heart beating, movement, ability to support yourself, etc) is completely arbitrary and not grounded in any defensible position. Whereas at the moment of fertilization a new, unique human being has been created.

The comparison to nazi medical research is valid. Both are sacrificing the life of the few against their will, to supposedly benefit the lives of the many. Both are human beings that are being murdered. I should be committed for trying to stand up against evil?

You are aware that the cells used for embryonic stem cell research are fertilized in vitro, right? They are not ferilized in a womans body and then ripped out.
+
I find your comparison of embryonic stem cell research to the genocide committed by the Nazis both appalling and nauseating. If you are truly incapable of seeing any difference between the two, I ask that you do society a favor and have yourself committed. Soon.

For those who may not remember, the nazis did all kinds of horrible medical experiments on their prisoners, out of which came some very useful results that we still take advantage of today. But even though this good came as a result of that evil done decades ago, do you think we should continue performing similar experiments to benefit more people, find more cures, expand our knowledge of the human body? Of course not. It's the same issue with embryonic stem cell research; maybe there are treatments that could be developed in the future, but that doesn't justify the evil of killing a human being. The only difference between this research and what the nazis did is that these humans are too small to see so we can conveniently tell ourselves they're not really human (just like the nazis probably told themselves the Jews and handicapped were not full humans).

And by the way, the problem I have is with killing humans, and that applies to fertility treatments as well. It should be illegal to fertilize/freeze dozens of embryos and then throw most of them away. It's a fallen world indeed.

From Wikipedia:

Excess embryos created for in vitro fertilisation could be donated with consent and used for the research.
A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos.
Embryonic stem cells can be considered far more useful therapeutically than adult stem cells

This is usually presented as a counter-argument to using adult stem cells as an alternative that doesn't involve embryonic destruction.

Embryonic stem cells make up a significant proportion of a developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual (e.g. in every 10,000 cells of the bone marrow, only 10 will be usable stem cells). Thus, embryonic stem cells are likely to be easier to isolate and grow ex vivo than adult stem cells.[20]
Embryonic stem cells divide more rapidly than adult stem cells, potentially making it easier to generate large numbers of cells for therapeutic means. In contrast, adult stem cell might not divide fast enough to offer immediate treatment.[20]
Embryonic stem cells have greater plasticity, allowing them to treat a wider range of diseases.[20]
Adult stem cells from the patient's own body might not be effective in treatment of genetic disorders. Allogeneic embryonic stem cell transplantation (i.e. from a healthy donor) may be more practical in these cases than gene therapy of a patient's own cell.[20]
DNA abnormalities found in adult stem cells that are caused by toxins and sunlight may make them poorly suited for treatment.[20]
Embryonic stem cells have been shown to be effective in treating heart damage in mice.[20]

Morality is also a legal thing, you know, like killing a human being is "illegal".

I only have a minute, but as for the wasteful issue, there was initially alot of research into both types of stem cells, adult and embryonic. Research in embryonic stem cells has produced nothing, whereas research in adult stem cells has produced over 70 cures/treatments the last I checked. Whenever people complain about the immorality of embryonic stem cells (which kills a human being), the response is usually to point out the benefits of stem cell research, conveniently leaving out that it's the adult stem cell research that produces benefits. Adult stem cells do NOT require killing a human being.

I'm pretty curious, too.

Please expand on how embryonic stem cell research is wastefull, but do so leaving out the "moral" issue. Morality is a personal thing.
Just curious...

And the university depends on federal grants for embryonic stem cell research, because the private investors have already realized it's a waste of money and put the money into ADULT stem cell research. Not only is this immoral but it is wasteful. Focus on adult stem cell research which has already resulted in numerous treatments.