You have repeatedly used the term embryos.
Your #27: “Add to that the fact that it is overwhelmingly likely that parthenogenetic embryos simply cannot develop into normal humans, and I think you're in the clear, morally speaking”
Your #28: “Right, fine. But as I said in my previous post, we're also talking about embryos here where it's extremely likely that it cannot develop into a viable human baby. If you actually implanted one into a womb, the likelihood is that it would just spontaneously abort or be reabsorbed or be stillborn anyway. We're talking about embryos that really aren't long-term viable anyway, so where does that leave us?”
Are they or are they not human embryos?
In your # 57 you start with: As you may have noticed, I'm trying to walk a middle ground here, and find some compromise that can satisfy everyone.”
In your #58 you start with: “setting aside the morality of it for a moment”
With all due respect “setting aside the morality of it for a moment” & “middle ground” are not acceptable with this subject.
Doing the science first and figuring out the morality after the fact sounds hauntingly familiar to: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
30 years and 42+ million dead babies later, this country is so dead to the truth that this very week people are debating weather or not Connor Peterson was a “Person” deserving equal protection under law. UNACCEPTABLE.
Also—if you could please let me know what your position on abortion is, that would give me a much more clear understanding as to your general fundamentals on Bio-ethics.
Only for lack of a better word. DC's post 33 does a good job of expressing why "embryo" is not an adequate description of the things we're talking about. If you look up "embryo" in the dictionary, parthenotes don't really fit any of the definitions offered.
With all due respect “setting aside the morality of it for a moment” & “middle ground” are not acceptable with this subject.
Certainly they are. WRT to my post 58, you are ignoring the context of what I said, which was an attempt to explain why people were interested in researching fetal stem cells, without attempting to address the morality of such research. If I may be permitted to expand on that a bit, while it may be convenient from a political standpoint to ignore why people actually do what they do, and instead paint stem-cell researchers as Doctor Victor von Doom, twirling their moustaches as they engage in the twisted pursuit of forbidden science, that is hardly a truthful portrait. Whether their acts are objectively evil or not, nobody does things like that simply for the sake of being evil. There are practical reasons for fetal stem-cell reasearch - the question is whether those practical reasons justify the acts being done, which is not answered by pretending that those reasons don't exist.
As for whether a middle ground exists or not, it certainly does, but whether you choose to avail yourself of it is entirely up to you. This strikes me as a fine place to compromise, because it doesn't involve actual or potential human beings for the research subjects. Now, if you still choose not to accept this research as worthwhile or morally valid, that is certainly your prerogative, but you will have to find some grounds for rejecting it other than as a defense of the sanctity of human life - that argument is not applicable here, because we're not talking about a human life when we talk about the product of parthenogenesis.
Also—if you could please let me know what your position on abortion is, that would give me a much more clear understanding as to your general fundamentals on Bio-ethics.
I'm sure it would, but you'll have to settle for evaluating my argument in this area on its own merits. As I said, I don't believe one's position on abortion is really relevant here, since this is a different set of issues - I believe it's entirely possible for you or I to oppose abortion, and yet not object to parthenogenesis on the simple grounds that the product of parthenogenesis is neither an actual nor a potential human life. And human life is, after all, the ultimate subject of interest in the matter of abortion.