The Debate Over EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Research 

Coleman 

Intentional destruction of human life is always forbidden.

The zygote (new embryo) has the inherent unity of an individual human.

Therefore, to intentionally destroy a zygote is always forbidden.

BUT taking the stem cells from a zygote destroys it.

Therefore, To get stem cells from a zygote is always forbidden.

[Notice the missing point: Coleman does not establish that anyone intentionally destroys the zygote.]

Furthermore, stem cells creating through cloning are no different from those fertilized by the natural process for creating embryos.

Furthermore, respect for human life is more important than medical "progress."

Summary: Embryonic stem cell research requires the morally forbidden action of killing human individuals.

Nelson 

Do embryos have the same moral status as full moral agents? NO

The moral status of an embryo derives from two things:

• They are alive. All living things have some moral status, and their wanton destruction is wrong. However, it does not follow that we cannot kill mosquitoes.
• Embryos have a "unique relationship" with the man and woman who supplied their genetic material. The moral status becomes like that of someone with full moral status if a woman chooses to gestate that embryo. (Notice if that embryos had a RIGHT to be gestated, other women would have a duty to gestate the embryos left over from I.V. fertilizations.)

HUMAN status is not sufficient to give embryos full moral status.

• Human cancer cells are human. They can be cultured outside a human body in a laboratory. However, it is not wrong to kill these human cells. Therefore it is not wrong to kill un-gestated embryos.
• ET (of the movie ET) has full moral status. So our HUMAN status is not what's relevant.

Summary: It is not wrong to destroy human embryos for the morally good purpose of science research if the donors of the genetic material approve.