Ignoring religion, ethics or philosophy...scientific cons only.

Those excluded factors limit availability of stem cell lines for research. Makes it more expensive and more hoops to jump through to get them.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 11 2013 12:26am

You left out Morals. This same question can be asked for selling Organs, Eugenics, Euthanasia etc... etc...

Here is an article on this issue from Ohio University:

http://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2001-conferences/the-ethics-of-embryonic-stem-cell-research-finding-common-ground/

And another from the new England Journal of Medicine:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048145

To summarize:

Even if research on embryos is not wrong in itself, it will open the way to a slippery slope of dehumanizing practices, such as embryo farms, cloned babies, the use of fetuses for spare parts, and the commodification of human life

Both articles present arguments for and against Stem Cell Research and far exceed anything you can expect from opinions here

i dont think life should be extended due to overpopulation and such

population control is far better than "letting nature take its course".

i'd much rather see intelligent people live 300 years and kill off people like meth addicts to balance it out.

you'd also get in lots of good population control practice and experience before the inevitable roboman gets in the mix making sustaining human life for much longer periods a possibility.

This post was edited by Subwoofer on Nov 11 2013 10:06pm

its a good point but everyone has there own idea of intelligence and such. im for the death penalty which i think would be a start. but in terms of choosing who gets certain treatment, or who gets to have their life prolonged....its just not possible to determine who should be able to without including bias

Getting very Hitler in here