Controversial Topic Discussion

Yes.. people often say "science do not answer questions of morality"

Well, sure, science may not always, but religion suddenly doesn't either. Our sense of morality comes from our own intuition, and therefore, when we debate on morality, we really do not need to use any religious ideas. We do not need to read the 10 commandments to know that killing people is bad. We do not need to read the golden rule from the new testament to know that it is a nice idea that we should treat others just as we wish others would treat us.



However, in this case, I think science do offer an answer (!!). Embryo we use for stem cell research are no more than 3 day old. It consists of roughly 150 cells. There is no good reason to believe that our concern for the welfare of this collection of 150 cells should be equal to that concern of a fully grown man, or even a child. How could you possibly deny a man with parkinson's disease a possible cure just because you want to protect a formless mindless blob of cells? This is extremely irrational and counter-intuitive, and it's only justifiable if you evoke religious reasons not based on reason.

Science tell us that these collections of cells do not have the capability of suffer since a nervous system is nonexistent at this point, and that when we kill a fly, its suffer is infinitely higher. Thus, science answered this moral question.