Differences in humans

[Turgonian]

What I mean is that hard core religion doesn't want science to work on stem cell research, because of their belief that a few day old cells actually make up a human being.

Human life begins at conception. That's not 'hardcore religion', but it's simple philosophy. There are also non-religious people who are against embryonic stem cell research.
Sam Harris said something about it in his Letter to a Christian Nation. In Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist, JP Holding counters:

Finally for today, let's deal with your extended whinge about stem cells. You claim use of embryonic stem cells is a promising development. Really? Then why isn't private industry lining up to fund it? I'm sorry, but we have some doubts. As http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1845 notes, proven treatments keep being discovered with "adult" (somatic) stem cells, while embryonic stem cells have not been proven to be any good, except to produce tumors. See also http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4586. You may say that you need time; it's only been a few years since research started. Well, then, let the private sector do it. Surely they have as much money and intelligence as government workers do. As it is, I see from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... cards.html that the first treatment derived from embryonic cells is about to undergo clinical trials, and I see that an expert at the end is quoted as having doubts about whether the setup will work. Your rhetoric makes it sounds like the cures are ready and raring to go, with no problems in view, it's just those darned religionists who stand in the way. How about a little more honesty, Mr. Harris?

These are just the beginnings of questions you'll have to answer to convince me you have a case. As it is, your logic could stand a workout, as you try to fudge the issue by noting that a 3-day old embryo has only 150 cells, while a fly's brain has over 100,000. Oh! I had no idea that number of cells was what determined identity, Mr. Harris. So if you weigh 145 pounds, and I weigh 240, am I more human than you? The issue here, Mr. Harris, is not (as you think) the embryo's potentiality to become human. Our argument is that it IS human, now. And there's no comparison to scratching your nose and losing cells, because the end result of your view is that the entirety of the individual is killed. The issue, Mr. Harris, devolves to this: Is the embryo human? If it is not, you are free and clear. If it is, then you are not. Yet you seem to think counting cells is a way to arrive at humanity. Well, then, I'm more human than you.

On the side, the issue of souls isn't ever a starter. There are pro-life groups with no religious interest, like Godless Pro-Lifers and Libertarians for Life, and we use the same arguments they do. In any event, we don't even get that far with you since you have no evidence of useful stem cell treatments based on embryonic stem cells. And if that's not so, then why isn't private industry throwing "immense resources" at the problem?

You said:

Let's say we make it illegal to kill mustard plants.
Does that also mean destroying a single mustard seed is also illegal. I mean with cultivation, it would become a mustard plant.

Why would we make it illegal to kill mustard plants? Do they have the same value as humans? Do they have a soul? Do they have personality?

[Canuckster1127]

your right, it makes no difference to the dead guy.

However, society has a vested interest in the cause of whether intent was causal. It is this protection that we as citizens have, that is important to the living.

It is of moral value that we are interested in intent. And if intent of harm is found, the law has a stiffer punishment.

Certainly legal codes can and do differentiate as to intgent. That is a different realm than what is at stake here. The issue here that you are skirting is that Dawkins and ayone else who would seek to experiment with human life but yet has no basis upon which to define and value human life are using situational ethics and post-modernistic relativism in the absence of absolute values and agreed upon definitions of human life and worth and the result of this is that the line of what is "right" and what is "wrong" becomes a moving target.

An individual is only as safe and as valued as what his/her society attributes in terms of value of the life of the weakest and most vulnerable member of that society.

What is moral and what is legal are two different things.