I, David Hume moral skepticism concludes that an individual’s morals are matters of their feelings about the fact, resulted from ones own experience. This is my empiricist method. My argument shifted philosophy in general from the norm to a radical point of view. I believed that the materials of thinking, our perceptions, are derived either two categories our ideads and our impressions. You can conclude that facts have no impact on a individual’s actions and morality never consists in any single matter of fact that could be perceived by reason alone. The debate over this issue is that of abortion. The opposition of stem cell research argues that the embryo is being destroyed during this process. This issue is one of our society’s morals. I argued that an individual’s “sentiments and affections,” not reason, is what leads us our actions. One can conclude that this stem cell research is moral because of their feelings about the subject. Not how they “ought” to feel about it, but how they really feel about it. The feelings associated with certain facts change from person to person. One may favor this research because they have personally been affected by it. Society says how we ought to feel about something and it is subjects that encounter this issue will reason it immoral because they have never had previous experience with it. So an individual who supports stem cell research had deemed it moral because my reason gave way to his “sentiment and affections.” I create a point in that an individual ought to feel a certain way about something but they really feel different due to the impact of our feelings. It is our preception of the subject that creates a division amoung our people. Somone can know all the facts about this issue but until they experience it personally they will continue to denouce stem cell research as immoral. Yet, when they experience first hand the outcomes and benefits of it their feelings will overpower their reason.