There is a gradient of personhood and these embryos have far less (nearly none) than a grown human and so these people's desires are clearly going to be more important and should be.

I would say that it is more immoral not to do this if it will help mankind than to do it.

If you believe in any form of God, then you run into the problem that since God is omniscient, he already knows exactly what going to do at every single point of your life. This means that your life in some form is mapped out already for you, and so you don't have free will, you're not taking turns in direction, you're just going down a path that has already been laid out.

But the fact that he is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent means that he not only wants the best scenario to happen for everyone, but can make that happen with no effort. He could descent to earth and show everyone that he exists, but instead he sits in heaven, wherever that is, and does nothing, letting us, innately immoral beings, degrade on Earth and let most of us burn in the eternal fires of hell, all for what, so that those people's love for him who are christian is more pure, how ridiculously selfish and arrogant to think that having more people love him more, even though he's already got angels for that, trumps the importance of not letting billions of these sentient beings that he create suffer not only when they die and go to hell, but on a daily basis! How utterly ridiculous!

One aspect of this debate can focus in on specifics like fitness bands:

Over the last few years, fitness bands such as Fitbit and Jawbones, have seen an explosion in popularity. These wearables, which monitor activity levels, heart rate and sleep patterns, account for three out of four of the sales of wearable technology in the United States. The popularity of fitness bands ties into a wider trend of using technology to monitor our individual health.However the use of these fitness bands and health apps is untested and unscientific, while constant health monitoring could generate anxiety and a new generation of worried well.

Yes, you think, therefore in some form, you are. Whether you're an AI machine, a brain in a vat, or a human being, you exist in some form in order to think the things that you do

Hi Amarel,

A human being is a cluster of cells

Yes, but what sets us apart is a conscious and experience through senses. Your spit has clusters of cells in it, but you wouldn't compare this to a human being.

Of course a cluster of cells is alive. By strict definition. The question is when is that cluster of cells is a human.

Yes cells themselves are alive, I've not put my point across properly here. But they are not humans, some say that they are "potential humans", but this is just some made-up, non-tangible worthless label that means nothing.

There is a point at which everyone agrees we have a pile of sand. There is also a point at which no one would call grains of sand a “pile”. Our ignorance concerning when a cluster of sand grains becomes a pile does not negate that what is a pile now, was not a pile before, and that a change occurred in the interim.

Are you really going to say that sex with someone on their birthday is not a crime when sex with that person the day before was a pretty serious one? Yes. Your incredulity notwithstanding.

Yes if you read my other post you would see that these regulations like your sex analogy are only put in place for purely humanitarian reasons to appease the people. But in terms of morality and murder/not murder you cannot set a line where something that is not murder becomes murder suddenly.

Yes I talk about the hair being a full beard as I say that it becomes murder only once a theoretical point of potential independent survivability is surpassed, but since this cannot be a specific point in development, we must simply draw our own line late in development when the sand has certainly become the pile like I said

Really? you're saying something isn't real as you don't have proof. You don't have proof of ANYTHING in your life, you could be a brain in simulation, and you cannot prove that you aren't. You can't prove that the wall behind you doesn't disappear when you look away, so don't try and use proof as your way of dispelling God.

Though I don't follow any religion, the premise behind for example the Bible is that the person writing it was being instructed by God, and since it is the book of an omnipotent being, I think they would say that God made sure that there were no mistakes so that argument doesn't work against a theist.

If you really need equations to believe in everything, even though you cannot apply your empirical science ---( which itself is constantly proven wrong and changes as new information comes forth, so trusting in it may be the most stupid place to put your faith of all unless you plan on changing most of it every 50 years )--- to ultimate questions in your own life. Like do you believe that your mother loves you? the answer is likely yes, okay, prove it.

Okay your point of proof, well read my argument on the other side and you will realise that there is no evidence for anything that puts it in complete certainty.

Yes i agree, 99% of believers have theistic beliefs due to their upbringing, but there are ultimate questions which need the exist of something to satisfy them, like what created the universe from nothing? How is it that the universe is so ridiculously fine tuned to the point where the chance of the universe being like it is where abiogenesis is able to happen is neigh infinitesimal (google some stats concerning the fine-tuning argument and you will really be astonished.)

That's the thing Sean, you simply can't prove those things. We can take them to the extreme and say that you're just a brain in a vat and all of these experiences are simulated, you cannot say that this isn't true because there is no way of knowing. In the same way how do you know water cannot turn into wine, because someone told you that this would break the laws of thermodynamics? Well what if those are wrong and you have been hypnotised to believe them; therefore, when we apply this 'rigorous scrutiny' as Decartes called it, nothing can be proved to certainty, hence the problem of knowledge. I wasn't using this to say that God is proven, but there are simple facts like the creation of the universe, what could have started it? Complex life, how did we go from nothing to an eye or even more, a complex brain? you say evolution, I agree, but how can you jump from no eyes to an eye when evolution requires there to be a stage in the middle, but this stage would be that of a half complete eye that would provide no evolutionary advantage. I digress, but there are points to be addressed here

Well said. I personally do not have a faith in God but wanted to put this point on here. I do however have a vague belief in something, as I believe that there must be an uncaused cause which triggered the creation of everything. I would be interested in hearing other people's perspectives on the creation of everything from nothing.