Human Life?

Many believe embryos are living humans such that to conduct stem cell research on one is tantamount to murder. Is an embryo a human life? Why or why not? Is it still a human life if both the egg and the sperm are clinically donated, and if the embryo develops out of the uterous? How is there potential for human life outside of the uterous?

There is the value of life issue as well. The entire right to life argument is based on an idea of an intrinsic right to life. One they ague for at birth but willingly disregard later when deciding to START wars and execute any number of people.

Not to mention animals.

I think you've avoided the question altogether.

I'm not trying to answer any question more than I had, I don't remember exactly what a test tube baby is at the moment to remember if they can currently gestate embryos and fetusses outside a womb to make a judgement on whether to call such a fetus alive, if they can't they will soon and so yes it is alive.

But again, that's only the first hurdle in the right to life argument, if you weren't wanting to talk about anything but your one point them ignore me.

It is a test tube baby when the scientist puts the embryo back into the uterous. Otherwise, life is improbable.

However, we must determine what is life before we can determine if it is valuable.

So, is an embryo alive regardless of whether or not the scientist puts the embryo back into the uterous?

So one would think, but that's just it, the only reason it becomes an argument is because religious people think they have it all figured out and say it is.

One would think what? The religious would say what?

"However, we must determine what is life before we can determine if it is valuable"

It's a human after the first trimester when the central nervous system has developed and it becomes consciously aware of what it is and where it is, and who it is. If it can feel, if it can think, it is human.

I am in no way religious, friend. If you understand what follows from the primary argument, then you understand that if there is a debate about embryonic stem cell research, it has to do with first establishing what human life is before placing a value of "human" on it. Astarte is almost right by saying that if it can think and feel, then it is human. That definition limits some humans and grants humanity to many non-humans. Absolutes, therefore, should not be used to define what is human. Rather, the potential for something such as the ability to empathize with other human beings, which tends to set humans apart from non-humans, may be a more precise definition.

Then, the definition does not exclude the retarded, the psychotic, the babies, the unborn, because these have the potential but do not have the absolute.

all those speaking out against it must be unaware of the facts.

if there is potential to grow and form a fetus, but that potential is re-routed...

the result is not in any way connected to what we see as a developing (human), baby, or even fetus- is it? (excluding the origin)

During and after the first trimester also makes sense because taratogens are not harmful prior to that period. That's not a free ticket for a mother to be reckless. One should have her body in prime condition for her baby. If one is considering direct causation, were there truly such a thing, then a large factor one would consider is taratogens before, during, and after the first trimester. Since embryos are not affected by taratogens, and living humans are directly affected by taratogens, then embryos are not living humans.