Remember the days of Bill Gates as a Borg on every Microsoft story here? Remember the days of MS being written as "M$"? Remember the days of every geek worth their salt on Slashdot loathed Microsoft? My my, times have changed. I for one, welcome it.

And now THIS will be the year of LInux on the desktop!

I was a major Amiga evangelist back then. But unfortunately, Commodore didn't really know what it had and screwed it all up. They kept trying to shoehorn it into being a "business" computer or something like that, instead of playing up on it's strengths over DOS and the dreadful Macs at the time.

And ultimately, what made the Amiga great was also it's downfall, as it's special chips (Agnes, Paula, Denise etc) couldn't really scale to a new architecture.

No, this isn't true. People use the iPad everyday to create, write, paint (yes, other than Draw Something), create all kinds of music with the myriad of music apps and synths and drum machines etc et. It's not a consumption device. It's just a device. People use it in different ways. Shocking, I know...but people use things in different ways than you.

Is it better than a laptop? In some ways yes, in some ways no. Is a laptop better? Again, in some ways yes, in some ways no. Can some people live with the iPad alone? Very much so. My wife has been using computers now for 25 years, she hasn't touched her desktop since getting her iPad. Seriously, she does everything on it. Write, do email, do her banking, read, edit PDF files, log into her work computer via SSH and works in a terminal. If she needs to type something long, out comes the bluetooth keyboard and she types away, then when she finished she puts it away and it goes back to just being a tablet.

Full disclosure, I personally couldn't work this way. I'm kind of set-in-my-ways with my desktop and even a laptop feels cramped. But I recognize that my way isn't the only way.

But let's get back to the "consumption device" thing people throw out there about tablets, and the iPad specifically. I've shown this isn't true for some people. People that don't let others tell them what to do or haven't heard you can't create on it. But lets assume I didn't say that and just go along with you, and others, and say it IS only for consumption. What's wrong with that? Why is this weird insult directed at this device? Do people say that about...I don't know...the Microsoft Xbox360? "Oh, it's just for consumption and watching movies and playing games...not for creating anything". If not, why not? Are DVD players and big screen TV's get this thrown at them too? What about the opposite? "Oh, that guitar is only for creating, you can't consume anything on it".

Okay, I've stepped over into silly-land, but hopefully you get my point.

I haven't used it, but I've heard good things about http://www.mvelopes.com/

But this presumes that embryos aren't already persons before they're implanted. Again, my question is: when do you think we become persons?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. In my opinion, a philosophy that allows for a "sliding scale" of personhood will always lead to horrific abuses, as has been shown throughout human history.

You didn't exactly come out and say, but it seems to me that you are saying that embryos are in fact not human beings. That's a valid point of view, although one I don't agree with. Once you've made that determination, it really shouldn't matter whether or not the embryo is outside a woman's uterus or not.

It is also irrelevant whether or not it takes "positive action" for the embryo to continue to develop; that is also true for newborn infants (they must be kept warm, fed, etc., or they will die quite quickly), but I doubt you would suggest that newborns should be harvested.

And the argument that an unused embryo won't last forever seems specious to me: that argument could be made about any one of us in any stage. Consider the prisoner on death row: if not pardoned they'll either be destroyed (executed) or degrade into uselessness (die a natural death). So why not harvest their organs?

In conclusion, I still think the primary issue with abortion or stem cell research is whether or not an embryo/fetus is a human being, a legal person. All other arguments (and yours were good ones, I might say), just cloud the issue and don't get to the heart of things.

Your statement comparing embryos to sperm is either a demonstration of profound ignorance of the process of human reproduction, or else just a willful disregard of fact. When do you think human personhood actually begins?

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say that there are 10 embryos, all the product of artificial insemination. Five are used to create stem cells and in the process are killed. The other five are "rescued" and implanted in an adoptive mother's uterus and brought to full term.

Now, ten years later, let's imagine that it is decided that the five surviving embryos (now all ten year old children) need to be killed so that their organs can be harvested. By doing this thousands of people's lives can be saved through some revolutionary scientific discovery.

My question: if you are not comfortable with killing the five 10-year old children, why is there a difference between this and killing the five embryos? I'm guessing it gets down to when you think personhood begins. It has nothing to do with the purpose for which the ten embryos were originally created. If that were the case, you shouldn't mind if the 10-year olds are killed since they were the byproduct of artificial insemination and were planned to be thrown away.

If you don't know when personhood begins, wouldn't it be prudent to have an abundance of caution when dealing with matters of life and death?

No, you are confused. The cells extracted from the embryo are grown in a petri dish into a sheet. But the embryo itself is killed in the process.

This still doesn't answer my original question: when in the process from conception to birth do you think the embryo/fetus become a person? That is the ultimate question that must be answered if we are to determine if embryonic stem cell research is ethical or not.

And if the question cannot satisfactorily be answered, in my opinion we should err on the side of caution and declare embryonic stem cell research unethical.

Not really. It is more like what the Chinese allegedly do to some of their prisoners (killing & harvesting their organs). The difference? Cadavers used for medical research are from people who died from some external effect (disease, accident). Embryos used to make stem cells would not die if they were implanted...in fact, they would grow and be born just like everyone else.

So if an embryo is not a person, then when does "it" become a person, in your opinion? Do you know the answer? If you are not sure, then why are you willing to risk being wrong?

Your ignorance is astounding. Please brush up on basic human reproduction before commenting here. Here's a hint: unfertilized egg != embryo.

I recommend Evernote

I voted for Chemistry also. I want to be a geeky meth king-pin!

Just kidding....