Sorry about your Dad, but...
Oh, yes, I am going to add the Kerryesque but...
How much he or you or anybody else suffered is simply not relevant to the question.
To come to a rational decision on the question of Embryonic Stem Cell research, you only need to answer the question of whether or not the embryos are to be valued as human life.
If the answer is no, if human embryos are too primitive or too unlike born human beings to merit protection, then the rational position is that they should be used for everything or anything. For lifesaving therapy, cutting edge research or as a salad garnish, it matters not. Motive doen't matter because it is being set against something that has no value.
If, on the other hand, the answer is yes, that human embryos are human life and merit protection, then to say they should be utilized for very important research or to alleve great suffering is no more valid than proposing to use toddlers for the same purpose. It is a utilitarian argument about human life that says some lives are worth more than others, or that it is worth it to sacrifice some human life for great gain. This type of argument should, even must, be an anathma to any civilized human being.
> human embryos are human life and merit protection, then to say they should be utilized for very important research or to alleve great suffering is no more valid than proposing to use toddlers for the same purpose.
How about adults? Should we stop organ transplants using dead adults? What makes dead embryos or dead toddlers more important than dead adults?
Whether you like it or not, the embryos under discussion here are ALREADY DEAD. Not using them for research will not bring them back.
The real question is: what is it you are opposed to... medical research... or abortion? If the latter, focus on that, do not focus on what is essentially a ridiculous arguement.
>>> if human embryos are too primitive or too unlike born human beings to merit protection, then the rational position is that they should be used for everything or anything. if human embryos are too primitive or too unlike born human beings to merit protection, then the rational position is that they should be used for everything or anything.
To play devil's advocate (I support the President's position because it is the President's): why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't these life forms have less value than a developed human but more value than Baco's? Should we be using cats as salad garnishes because they are not as "valuable" as humans?
Basically, while I always support the President, I am not sure your "only rational" approach to this issue is rational at all.