Embryonic stem cell research
-
President Bush stated that a moral boundary would be crossed so it was vetoed. Do you know the exact boundary he is not prepared to cross and where does this differ from statements made Sept 2004 during the Bush/Kerry presidential debates not forgetting the support for stem cell research by Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation that has many high profile supporters. Two points of view from BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4038281.stm[^] and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4054733.stm[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Do you know the exact boundary he is not prepared to cross and where does this differ from statements made Sept 2004 during the Bush/Kerry presidential debates not forgetting the support for stem cell research by Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation that has many high profile supporters.
I believe that his moral boundary is at the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of federally funded research. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You can get defensive with me then. It is f****ing stupid to compare a bacteria to a human fetus at any stage of developement simply because the bacteria isn't a human fetus and will never become one regardless of how long you wait for it to. They are two completely different and distinct entities.
Okay, so when is that magic moment at which the fertilized embryo is no longer potentially human and suddenly becomes human? A human has very specific characteristics that make it human - characteristics not shared by a fertilized human egg. Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
thealj wrote:
Okay, so when is that magic moment at which the fertilized embryo is no longer potentially human and suddenly becomes human? A human has very specific characteristics that make it human - characteristics not shared by a fertilized human egg. Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 13:52 Thursday 20th July, 2006
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
After many biological processes from inception, which implies a fertilized egg, the point where it becomes human is where delivery occurs, until then, it is a foetus. And usually a foetus is not a viable proposition for delivery until around 25 weeks into pregnancy, although at that age of gestation, in some countries, abortion is perfectly legal, but that's another issue. I know there are documented cases of live births at earlier gestation but these children have horrendous existences from multiple problems due entirely to under development.
That's commonly known. But a fetus' dependence on its mother does not, in my mind, make it inhuman. Babies are biologically incapable of self-sustainment after birth for many years, so this logic suggests that infanticide can be morally acceptable (Katie Couric seems to believe this). "Humanity" is a very flexible term that is more subject to social definition than a scientific one. We can't detect when at what point we acquire a soul, if you believe in that sort of thing. We can determine other aspects such as the rough age when a fetus can feel pain, when the egg implants, the progression of the nervous systems' development, etc. Does consciousness denote humanity? If so, are babies not human (as I can't remember anything before age 4)? I prefer to accept that life begins at an early stage, regardless of developmental milestones because those are pretty arbitrary. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Babies are biologically incapable of self-sustainment after birth for many years
This I fully agree however.
espeir wrote:
Does consciousness denote humanity
Vygotsky in his studies into cognitive development established fact that newborn babies already possess certain mental functions, thus a measurable degree of consciousness. Nature definition shows that the base meaning in terms of childhood (not just humankind but any creature) indicates a state of in-built actions and re-actions of an abstract kind. Nurture is the cultivation of the life-form from where Nature apparently concludes. In order for a child of some life-form to become a worthwhile and valuable member of that life-form's society, the influences of Nature is insufficient. Caring for and instruction of the child by parents and perhaps others of that species is necessary. This not just ensures that the child of such species conforms to expectations but to become a candidate for the promulgation of their kind.
-
Sorry, I don't agree. Couples have sex and produce fertilized eggs all the time that never implant and never produce a pregnancy. So I don't see in vitro fertilization (IVF) as any different than that. The fact that some will be used and some "destroyed" is really no different than when a pregnancy miscarries or when a pre-embryo "mass" fails to attach to the uterine wall. That is why I am for IVF. I am troubled by embryonic stem cell research because it commoditizes human life.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
And people get killed every day in car wrecks also, so why not just arbitrarily kill adult humans? "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Automatic rejection - not stated anywhere. The possibility of rejection is one disadvantage of fetal cells. Inevitable tumors - not stated anywhere. One of the disadvantages of Adult stems cells is possible genetic mutation for disease or otherwise become defective.
Those came from the professor.
dennisd45 wrote:
By your own admission this discussion is political. Again you are descending to attack me personally, rather that what I say. While I have not done medical research, I know a bit more about the topic than what some guy said on a right wing talk show.
I'm overtly stating that I oppose embryonic stem cell research for moral reasons. It's not a matter of "admission" as that's my position. I'm stating that I believe the left is being disingenuous because there appears to be no scientific or moral reason so eagerly support embryonic stem cell research. My question is...Why the enthusiasm. I'm also suggesting my answer.
dennisd45 wrote:
I have tried to point out to you why there are reasons to persue this reseach that have nothing to do with "The Monolithic Left".
I never used the term "monolith left", so why put it in quotes? I understand that you're trying to make a case for the research (which is allowed to continue, just no federal dollars go towards embryonic destruction), but I disagree with its level of importance. If it were as important as you claim, we would see a lot of corporate money going into research, but it's headed more towards adult stem cells.
dennisd45 wrote:
A value judgement by you that is not endorsed by anything on the link. It doesn't draw a conclusion on one type or the other being "better".
Why am I not permitted to make a value judgement based on that web site? That's exactly what you did (and why you posted that link). "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy -- modified at 13:20 Thursday 20th July, 2006
espeir wrote:
I never used the term "monolith left", so why put it in quotes? I understand that you're trying to make a case for the research (which is allowed to continue, just no federal dollars go towards embryonic destruction), but I disagree with its level of importance. If it were as important as you claim, we would see a lot of corporate money going into research, but it's headed more towards adult stem cells.
I put it in quotes because your premise assumes that there is one but I don't believe there is. Do you actually have any evidence that more money is going into adult research and the reason is because it has more promise?
espeir wrote:
Why am I not permitted to make a value judgement based on that web site? That's exactly what you did (and why you posted that link).
You can make any value judgement you wish. But you said "Per your own link, adult stem cells are far more useful (just less abundant)." and the article does not say that. I didn't make that kind of value judgement. I said the article shows that adult and fetal cells are not the same. It does show that.
espeir wrote:
I'm stating that I believe the left is being disingenuous because there appears to be no scientific or moral reason so eagerly support embryonic stem cell research. My question is...Why the enthusiasm. I'm also suggesting my answer.
Let me summarize my response: 1. Your basic premise is flawed. There is no left that wants the research. Many people of all stripes want it. On the national political scene the Democratic party if the focal point for the support. But there is no "Monolitic Left". Even the Democratic party is not united enough to be thought of as monolithic. 2. There are scientific reasons to research embryonic stem cells. Both adult and embryonic cells have advantages and disadvantages and both should be persued. This is a good point in favor of Federal involvement:
espeir wrote:
which is allowed to continue, just no federal dollars go towards embryonic destruction
There are no restrictions on what private (ie Big Business) research can do in this area. Federal involvement would bring appropriate regulation to limit the abuses that can arise with no oversight, in an area fraught with ethical dilemmas. Also if all the research is in private han
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Do you know the exact boundary he is not prepared to cross and where does this differ from statements made Sept 2004 during the Bush/Kerry presidential debates not forgetting the support for stem cell research by Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation that has many high profile supporters.
I believe that his moral boundary is at the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of federally funded research. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
thealj wrote:
am still waiting for you to provide me with a definition that distinguishes how a bacteria is different from a 5 day old embryonic stem cell.
Allow me to interject a personal opinion here. A fetus can be proven to be alive by subjective standards. In function at that stage it is no different than any mulicelluar life form with one outstanding difference. It has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human. It is the only object in the universe that does have that property. It is unique and as such should be viewed in perspective of its potential outcome. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject.
That is painfully obvious given your very next statement.
espeir wrote:
Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something).
No one is killed to harvest stem cells. The embryos used are "killed" for any number of reasons, none of which have to do with stem cell research. You and your ilk need to: A. Stop spreading FUD until you get a clue, and... B. Get a clue! "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
If I were someone that could possibly benefit from treatment based on embryonic stem cells, for whatever reason, I would choose not to get the treatment.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote:
If
Huge word there... "if". You have no idea what you would do in a situation you do not face. None of us do. What if your wife or child faced such a situation? What about a grandchild? Do some serious research on the topic before you apply your "morals". "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
And people get killed every day in car wrecks also, so why not just arbitrarily kill adult humans? "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
And people get killed every day in car wrecks also, so why not just arbitrarily kill adult humans?
huh? WTF are talking about? You're comparing things that aren't comparable, Mr. Strawman.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
espeir wrote:
Babies are biologically incapable of self-sustainment after birth for many years
This I fully agree however.
espeir wrote:
Does consciousness denote humanity
Vygotsky in his studies into cognitive development established fact that newborn babies already possess certain mental functions, thus a measurable degree of consciousness. Nature definition shows that the base meaning in terms of childhood (not just humankind but any creature) indicates a state of in-built actions and re-actions of an abstract kind. Nurture is the cultivation of the life-form from where Nature apparently concludes. In order for a child of some life-form to become a worthwhile and valuable member of that life-form's society, the influences of Nature is insufficient. Caring for and instruction of the child by parents and perhaps others of that species is necessary. This not just ensures that the child of such species conforms to expectations but to become a candidate for the promulgation of their kind.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Vygotsky in his studies into cognitive development established fact that newborn babies already possess certain mental functions, thus a measurable degree of consciousness.
What is a "degree of consciousness"? A dog has that as well. Is killing a baby therefore equivalent to killing a cow or pig (as their level of consciousness is undoubtedly similar)?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nature definition shows that the base meaning in terms of childhood (not just humankind but any creature) indicates a state of in-built actions and re-actions of an abstract kind.
I don't understand. Can you reword this? If you're stating that babies act and react, the same could be applied to early fetuses.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nurture is the cultivation of the life-form from where Nature apparently concludes. In order for a child of some life-form to become a worthwhile and valuable member of that life-form's society, the influences of Nature is insufficient. Caring for and instruction of the child by parents and perhaps others of that species is necessary. This not just ensures that the child of such species conforms to expectations but to become a candidate for the promulgation of their kind.
I don't understand this either. Are you saying that life begins once "nature" hands off to "nurture"? This still does not clarify any particular point of development, since many 3rd trimester babies are capable of living outside the womb, but remain to complete development. And does the mother not nurture the fetus during development (by eating properly and not drinking, for example)? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
thealj wrote:
Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
Neither is a 1 year old baby. Is that disposble as well? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Neither is a 1 year old baby. Is that disposble as well?
How do you know that? They move their hands, eyes and mouth independently. They have a brain and functioning cortex. If they are not capable of independent thought, then obviously at some moment they become capable of this amazing talent. Tell me then, when does this special moment occur? So, according to you, babies are automatons that suddenly and spontaneously achieve the capability of individual thought. That's an interesting idea with huge ethical implications. For instance, if they are not capable of independent thought then they must not possess individual personalities. That's quite incredible because if they don't possess a personality then they aren't really human in anything but shape and form. Interesting, interesting...
-
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
He doesn't allow abortion clinics. A left-wing supreme court stripped Americans of our constitutional power to restrict them. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
thealj wrote:
Okay, so when is that magic moment at which the fertilized embryo is no longer potentially human and suddenly becomes human? A human has very specific characteristics that make it human - characteristics not shared by a fertilized human egg. Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 13:52 Thursday 20th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it.
Exactly.
-
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
Richard has already answered you. The particular unicelular life to which you are refering "has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human. It is the only object in the universe that does have that property. It is unique and as such should be viewed in perspective of its potential outcome." It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
He doesn't allow abortion clinics. A left-wing supreme court stripped Americans of our constitutional power to restrict them. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
I don't see him doing anything to counter them.
-
Richard has already answered you. The particular unicelular life to which you are refering "has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human. It is the only object in the universe that does have that property. It is unique and as such should be viewed in perspective of its potential outcome." It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it.
Exactly.
thealj wrote:
Exactly.
Thanks for agreeing that it is stupid to compare a human at any stage of development to a bacteria. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
thealj wrote:
Okay, so when is that magic moment at which the fertilized embryo is no longer potentially human and suddenly becomes human? A human has very specific characteristics that make it human - characteristics not shared by a fertilized human egg. Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 13:52 Thursday 20th July, 2006
very well written.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
I agree with most of what you said until this last paragraph. Our president does not have the authority to close abortion clinics, nor should he. He does have the power of veto which he is within his rights to use, though I believe this is the first time Bush has done so. Congress can override his veto if they get enough votes (2/3?). He has placed (or tried to place) justices on the supreme court that may, some day, have the opportunity to reverse the roe v. wade decision, but Bush really can't do anything else. It is all part of our checks and balances system, which actually works pretty well. (It might be argued that it would work even better when someone smarter than a stalk of celery is at the helm, but Bush has actually demonstrated how even a complete buffoon cannot destroy this country, even though he has tried his hardest. Yes, I will now run away after my pot shot.)
