[Your Nightmare]

Your statement that science and morals are separate or should be is in itself a moral statement. On what grounds do you base your moral statement, and why are your morals superior to anyone else's?

Whether or not embryonic stem cells can be used in medical treatments is a matter of fact. It's the objective knowledge. What the fact is about embryonic stem cell treatment is can be determined by science. It's the answer to the question "Can we?"

Whether or not it is morally correct to pursue this area of science is a matter of opinion. It's the subjective belief. It's the answer to the question "Should we?"

[hocndoc]

And how will we answer the question, "Should we"? (Traditionally, it's, "Ought we?")

Will we answer before years of men live with and spread syphillus. Or will we answer before gloves and lampshades are made from human skin? Will we answer before millions more nascent human lives are destroyed for the purposes of others, in effect negating the right to life for ever expanding classes of human beings so that now over 10% of the deaths in the Netherlands are due to euthanasia. Or will we wait until we are routinely creating human lives for the purpose of killing them