> > In very limited situations, the right of an authority to sacrifice lives for a good cause (sending soldiers to die in defense of one's nation, for example) is also acknowledged.
>
> I have almost nothing to say to advance this discussion, but I would like to point out that I do not feel that there is any kind of analogy that can be made here. The authority can sacrifice lives, bu it does not select which lives to sacrifice and it does not actually wish to sacrifice them. In the case of the parents aborting the fetus for stem-cell research, they have singled out an individual life and chosen to end it. In the best case scenario, a war would have no casualties, at least on one side.
>

Good point. I wasn't sure whether that analogy was legitimate, either.

> > If you have any insights or arguments that would move the discussion forward, please post 'em.
>
> Unfortunately, that is all I have right now. I do feel that if stem cells can be obtained from miscarried fetuses or other "natural" abortions, I would feel that this would be an acceptable source of stem cells for research, but my understanding is that there are not enough such cells available to do any real amount of research.
>

As far as I know, it isn't an option because the stem cells have to be harvested from an embryo not more than four days old.

It's strange to think about the fact that I myself used to be a four-day-old bunch of cells. How I got from that state to this is utterly beyond my comprehension.

Iss