I think it involves the destruction of human life, and I'm opposed to it.

You think that IVF is murder?

Man, really cute.

You have problems with reading comprehension.

What do YOU call "destruction of human life"? You can't have it both ways.

I hate to interrupt the cerebral portion of this debate, but state laws, federal laws, and where appropriate, military code define "murder" in this country and sovereign U.S. land elsewhere. I've handled around 12-15 murder cases, tried around half of them, and to my knowledge, none were based upon the "law" found in Wikipedia. Jury instructions, which tell the jury the applicable law in the jurisdiction as they relate to the case they are to decide, typically emanate from caselaw and statute. After over 100 trials, and thousands of cases, I've never seen any case charged based on what is in Wikipedia.

I was just trying to remind him of what constitutes murder since he didn't seem to understand.

Well, let's see. You compared using an existing therapeutic totipotent cell line to:

1) Harvesting the organs of the poor

@4: ("I think we should just harvest eyeballs and other organs from poor people. They’re nearly as vulnerable as the unborn - it should be pretty easy to pull off.")

2) Harvesting the organs of infants

@8: ("I think we should just harvest organs from newborns, but only the fussy ones. Just think of the long-term benefits to the gene pool!")

both of which are tantamount to murder. Obfuscating your verbage ("destroying human life") doesn't change the implications of your claims, especially considering how you opined on "long-term benefits".

#27 Well, murder is defined differently by different jurisdictions. Whether you agree with the definition or not is a different question. If it's not defined by the applicable law as murder, you cannot be prosecuted for murder.

Pac is right.....

Here in SC, in order to be charged with murder, you must have exhibited "malice aforethought" before commiting the act of murder. If prosecutors can't prove that, then you have voluntary manslaughter... a max of 30 years.

In regards to the OP, establishing "malice aforethought" would be pretty difficult in this case.

I ain't getting in to how I feel about all this, just thought I'd throw my .02 in the pot.

Haon - nowhere in the article does it mention that they will be using (much less exclusively using) existing totipotent cell lines. I said earlier that their use equates more to using a corpse for medical research - did you not catch that?

Pac - that's one of my points. Even what I had mentioned before that he pasts in 28 would not necessarily be considered murder.

"nowhere in the article does it mention that they will be using (much less exclusively using) existing totipotent cell lines. I said earlier that their use equates more to using a corpse for medical research - did you not catch that?"

I see where you are mistaken, I apologize.

FTA:

"The treatment involves replacing a layer of degenerated cells with new ones created from embryonic stem cells."

That's where it was said. Embryonic stem cells = totipotent cells.

Yes, but it does not specify that they would only use previously existing lines, thereby leaving open the question as to whether additional human life would be destroyed to support this therapy.

There are nonlethal ways to harvest stem cells. Adults can have their's harvested, menstrual blood can be used, any way that does NOT destroy a life.

Any but nonlethal means is murder. Parse it any way you want, for as long as you want, it is still murder.