What about birth control? Know of any birth control that's not "the pill" or the like that doesn't involve the dirty word "a_st_nence"? :D

It may surprise you to know that Bioethics was not offered at the Institute during the time of my confinement there. We did have an outstanding etiquette class though. The end result is that I'm better versed in setting a dining table than in discussing the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research.

On these topics, you'll have to be the teacher and I'll be the slack jawed student. I do have some interest in the controversy surrounding stem cell research due to familial diseases that have the potential of being cured through stem cell therapy.

What would you identify as the fundamental ethical concern in stem cell research?

Embryos being discarded - hence 'the disregard' for the sanctity of human life. But mention stem cell research, many people automatically assume embryonic stem cell research and reject the idea. But there are placental stem cells, adult stem cells.. certainly not with the differentiating potential that embryonic stem cells have but with potential.

I don't agree with embryos being made with the express purpose for stem cell research - but I think the science has great potential and that if embryos are to be discarded (through abortion (unfortunate and devastating but a reality) and if no one claims embryos left at fertility clinics), then I am not against scientists using the embryos to try and do some good.

As for the Institute, I think a course should be offered in controversial topics so that if the topics arise in discussions, students have background knowledge and can share more than just opinions. I know that many in science would walk away from a discussion when another hadn't completed any background research and were just spouting 'things' they had heard.

Ha, Ha, Ha.

I agree with what you are saying, but you sound a lot like my son, a fourth year honours history student, when he gets on a rant about preachers authoritatively declaring historical "facts."

LOL! :toofunny

It's not the facts so much - it's just if someone is going to actively engage in a discussion about a controversial issue, they don't have to know all the ins and outs of the issue .. it's not their field of study (I can understand that). If they make an effort to just research a definition of the issue and the arguments behind it, it goes quite a way in bridging the gap for communication and discussion.

I know! We all know how to set a proper table. Mom took etiquette too. :)

The sanctity of human life is a fundamental principle in the Christian world view, and a principle that I think should be a guiding light in every discussion of Bioethics. For that reason, the use of stem cells from aborted fetus', and to a lesser degree from discarded embryos left at fertility clinics, is a very difficult moral and ethical question. Can we benefit from abortion and at the same time declare the practice morally reprehensible, and retain credibility? Can we benefit from the casual production and discarding of human embryos and at the same time maintain credibility in our declaration of the sanctity of all human life? The questions are definitely easier to frame than the answers.

From my casual observation, it appears that the cutting edge of research is moving beyond embryonic stem cell research to the other sources you have referenced. Is that indeed the case, or does it only appear to be the case because the more innovative methods get more space in the press?

Also could you give a brief explanation of "differentiating potential." A "Differentiating Potential for Dummies" would be good.

I head into work early in the morning. I'll be back. :)