!!SPOILERS!!
I forgot to mention cloning. There’s a movie called The Island. It’s probably based on a book I haven’t read, anyhow…
In the movie, people are cloned and the clones are harvested for body parts. There’s a clear ethical question here between quality/quantity of life. To clone is fine, but we’re all ‘failed’ clones of our parents. An artifical clone seems to me to be of equal value and therefore, shouldn’t be descriminated against.
I always like this question and I think it depends on which side of the debate you are on – but the results aren’t quite what you’d expect.
If embryos aren’t people because potentiality does not equal actuality, then there isn’t a distinction between disposing of the embryonic mass or saving it for research. After all, any good that can come from the research merely represents a potentiality.
On the other hand, if embryos are people I think it would be morally worse to dispose of the medical waste from in vitro fertilization or abortions. After all, in either case the potentiality of becoming a person is effectively eliminated* but in one case there is some potential that good can come from their sacrifice. Granted, then there is the whole issue of consent which is where it gets real tricky real fast 
*One way of marketing embryonic stem cells that no one seems to latch onto because of fears of cloning is that the potentiality of the embryonic stem cell becoming a person isn’t (theoretically) eliminated. So instead of being “dead” by disposal they are kept in a sort of stasis. Not frozen but growing and alive and ready to turn develop into a human being if/when it is decided to do so.
Ok burr under the saddle.
Sure, consent is clearly an issue here. But a common tenet among anti-abortionists is that any life is worth living so given that the stasis option is clearly superior to the destruction option.
I don’t know of anyone who seriously suggests that we should grow whole human bodies with or without brains. As for copying memories, that area is outside of my expertise but my understanding is that it is a lot like cold fusion: it is a technology we’ve been 40 years away from for the last 40 years. Plus, there is the whole teleportation dilemma: is a copy of you the same thing as you?
well stasis can only accommodate so many. After that there has to be destruction. I know that the arks are carrying the best of the best. Yet don’t we need mediocre? Stasis supplies an army or extinction or prevention of extinction. Who picks and chooses now?
As for the copy, I guess that would depend upon what a person values more, the body or the soul. Replicated energy is identical to the original. Seperate yet same. Where one ends the next begins without lapse. As long as your being is the same the copy should be thought of as original.
Okay. Some questions–what form of preservation, other than cryopreservation or vitrification, both of which involve ‘freezing’, are used to preserve stem cells? IOW, what is meant by ‘stasis?’ And can hESCs be used for anything other than research into disease? (I know part of the answer, but would like you to do the teaching about mesenchymal cells, if you would, please.) What are unbilical blood stem cells used for? What are HSCs used for?
Would/could embryos and umbilical cords fall under the organ donor program? Should doctors routinely ask the patient how she wants the ‘waste’ disposed of (some may want burial, for example?)
I’ll probably have more, but in the meantime, thank you for contributing so much. The more people are educated, the better their decisions. 
Joe, you made the point that it’s the humans rather than the science that need ethics, and I agree. In your mind, do you think scientific ethics have gone as far as possible when use of stem cells are involved or do you think scientific/medical ethics need further review? BTW, I don’t think it’ll ever come to a point where human clones are created, given current population growth, do you? Your last statement harkens back to the threads about robots, and cyborgs, and AI. (Oh, my!) 
Just in the general scheme of things, it seems to me that, if a patient chooses an abortion, she’s already chosen to end a pregnancy that could end with a live birth. The only other decision she’d then have to make is what to do with the ‘waste.’ With in vitro fertilization, the patient needs to decide how many embryos should be implanted (since not all implants will be successful) and how many should continue to be preserved for possible later use. But this doesn’t answer the basic question of the morality of stem cell research; instead, it’s asking about the morality of taking what the patient doesn’t want and is valueless to her and turning it into something of value for other people. To me, the answer should be pretty clear–but I was never faced with the question.
I don’t know what the legal standard of ethics is for scientists, because I’m not one. With that in mind, based on my ethics, I say that stem cell research can be done ethically, and is a hugely powerful technology. With that power, comes great response-ability (As James has said, hats off). Being able to respond/react to our environment based on our values, is a gift. We can use it shape our environment in accordance with our desire, but it’s a question of what do we desire? That is the element that will make or break a technology. If we aren’t wise enough to understand ourselves, then that should be our utmost priority, for how can one grow when one isn’t aware of what one is already?
As for clones - if there’s a will, there’s a way / necessity is the mother of all invention. As for application and current population, my mind goes to China. As we’re all probably aware, there’s regulation of population growth in China. If you go over the limit, the state fines you, and you’re solely responsible for the well being of the child. What I mean by this is that you have to use your own resources to support the child because the government wont aide you. I haven’t verified this, but it’s accurate to to the best of my understanding. Anyhow…
If someone wants a clone in the future, perhaps the ‘state’ will regulate it and make you meet a certain criteria like adoption, in order for you to gain access. Then, they might say something along the lines of “We’re not going to support them. It’s your obligation”. This assumes that in the future, clones will be descriminated against by being treated like property, and also that there’s still a formal ‘state’ that spewing out whatever appeals to them, something crazy like CONTROL and FEAR…
As for application, there’s too many to write down. A few big ones are: Create your own species, increase life expectancy, clone desirables (ie. lovers, stars, scientists, some adorable child you saw in an advertisement, yourself), testing, ‘artificial’ body enhancement (ie. 8 brains, reproductive organs, hands). And the list goes on. Population in and of itelf, may not restrain people, depending our technology to support. Another example, we might be able to develop a body that can fully sustain itself on sunlight, or hydrogen.
I dare say the type of person that can afford a clone is the same type that would not get one. Ego, meaning, that clone will grow up to be your competitor. I see governments and groups/ corporations as the primary purchasers of cloned humans.But as x points out it likely will not occur.
Stemcells has no neurological connections why it has nothing to do with human life.
It took a minute to understand that.
You know that is about the most sensible statement yet.
Let’s just end this debate once and for all:
A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembered, in this context, that when a person’s brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.
Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter’s potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings.
Nope the previous was the best.