Your ethical stance requires a dogmatic definition of when life begins
And so does yours.
I think most English speakers of our day would attach some negative connotation of intolerant religous doctrine or of illogical blatherings when the words "dogma" or "dogmatic" are used. I certainly took it in that sense, and I suspect this is the sense you mean it in.
So I looked it up. I think American Heritage's 3rd definition best characterizes my ethical stance.
My arguments have been no more "dogmatic" than yours or any other poster's, and have certainly been less than some, given that I have always provided a logical argument to back them up or refute attacks on them.
You said: >> How did you arrive at that without religious conviction or luddite mentality?
As stated earlier, religion need have nothing to do with this, and in general I am in favor of scientific advance. Now, it *certainly* is a question of ethics, and society must decide on ethical grounds.
I am positing that life must not be snuffed out but for rare and special cases. I have found no pro-abortion-on-demand argument that meets the "rare and special case" criteria. The argument of mothers that abort their children *is*, in the large majority of cases, a matter of "it's not in my best interest". It may be social stigma, economic difficulties, or loosing the body of her youth, but those reasons pale in comparison to the matter of l-i-f-e. Now, couple that with the fact that most children are conceived resulting from a consentual act by their parents, and the convenience logic above apprears ludicrously unjust.
That is taking an ethical stance, not dogma.
>> No that is illogical unless unless a) Strangling the person was in your pursuit of happiness...
Suppose it was? That doesn't make it right, now does it?
>>...and b) being strangled by you was their pursuit of happiness.
Why "and"? But anyway, let's say it wasn't in their pursuit of happiness.
My point was that society should **absolutely** tell me what to do with my hand if I'm strangling somebody to death, and it should be a resounding "STOP!" that society responds with, because my freedom to act is **way** subservient to the other's right to live.
>>...does not hold unless you accept that the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of the would-be mother. And that requires some sort of dogmatic position.
I invite you to point out any "dogma" in my previous arguments, and please be sure to explain how my defense of an ethical position is dogma while your defense of your position is not.
You said: >> Can an embryo exist on its own outside of its host body?...No... Then it is *not* in any way shape or form an *individual* life.
Non sequitur. That simply is not a rational argument. It *is* perfectly rational to reply, though you don't want to seem to agree, that neither can a newborn exist without care. At what point, then, does life begin in your view? It seems you are chosing to ignore this fundamental question.
>> Of course, you will not accept this, yet you will be completely unable to come up with *rational* refutation of my point.
A rational argument should be made devoid of emotion, using logic and reason. I suggest you cannot point out any reason why my arguments have been irrational, other than that I don't agree with you.
>> Abortion and similar opponents are, in general, (no offense to you personally) about the most disgusting sub-human scum on the planet.
Your ad hominem attacks do you a disservice.
>>...most of the anti-abortion people are the same ones who are up in arms whenever anyone talks about teaching people about birth control.
Please stick to the topic at hand.
>> So rather than allow a person to choose what she allows to grow inside her own freaking body, they want to force her by law to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and then 18 years of raising a child.... these people are claiming that having sex is a crime....
I have not at any point suggested that having sex is a crime. I have presented a rational case that if a couple engages in sex, and it results in a new life, the preservation of life supersedes all other rights. They should be bound (by law, in my opinion) to look after the welfare of that life. Certainly a reasonable solution is adoption. Now, if they don't want to be bound to look after the welfare of a child they might conceive, then they both have sure-fire alternatives available to them to prevent conception of any new life.
You may not like that argument, but it is not irrational. I suspect that folks that don't like such an argument also didn't like it when their parents disciplined them for misbehaving.
>> If you want kids, and choose to have them, then that is totally your business...
I'm glad to find we agree on something, but the fundamental question remains, when is it a child?
I appreciate your sincere argument. I'll give you sincere rebuttal.
>> That starting cell is a part of her the same way a fingernail or a skin cell is...
The embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. It is then "its own owner", if you will. The rest of that paragraph talks of cells that truly are hers. She can do what she wants with them.
>> An earlier point said would you charge a woman with murder for exercising too hard and losing her zygote.
I said one should assume that most miscarriages are by natural causes unless there are strong reasons to suspect otherwise. "Willfully working out too hard" would be something she would have to live with, because it would be useless to try to prove otherwise.
>> I'm not convinced of your argument that it is a life.
Is that because of some preconceived notion, or because you have a rational argument to the contrary. I sincerely welcome a rational rebuttal.
>>...what if she can't afford to raise it? Will you pay her child support? Will you adopt the child? Or would you support laws that would bring more suffering into the world?
In the *vast* majority of cases, she is the bearer of a new life because of a conscious decision she and the father made, knowing of the possibility of new life. They must live with the consecuences, which may include offering the child up for adoption. There are *millions* of couples that would like that chance.
You said: >> So why does the brand-new human's rights supersede those of the woman's? I can't pursue happiness on your property without your permission... So why should this be different? If the new human is so determined at a shot at life, maybe it should leave the womb and gestate elsewhere - or optionally it should request permission to gestate in the woman's womb.
In the *vast* majority of cases, the brand-new human is in the mother's womb because of a conscious decision on her part and the father's to engage in an activity they knew might result in a brand-new human. I fully support their right to engage in that activity (call me pro-choice!), but both should live up to the responsibility that goes with that right, namely that the brand-new human's right to life does absolutely supersede their convenience.
I have the right to my own body, but I can't wrap my hands around someone's neck and say after their death: "they should have asked to be in someone else's hands." That is, in my view, a logical extension of your line of reasoning, which is of course absurd.
>> According to the defintion of "individual", it does.
Why?
>> You might switch the context of "an individual" to merely "a single thing", but then how is your mass of cells different from a tumor or clump of "adult" stem cells?
It's not much different. All the cells in question have a single owner, and we should get his permission before doing anything with them
It appears to me that all of your arguments revolve around this theme, and please correct me if I'm wrong:
"It's not a life yet because look what I can do with it now that I can't do after point X in its development."
In my view, you've missed that they aren't *your* cells. They're not even the *mother's* cells. They're completely unique. They're living and growing. They are, then, a brand-new created agent that is endowed with every right you and I so cherish.
You said: >> Why do Anti-ESCR folks keep using the generai term "human life" when they mean a specific "human being"?
They use the term because, as in my case, they do not think the distinction is relevant to the debate.
>> Are you also against tissue culture and organ transplant?
No, as long as *I* (or my next of kin if I'm dead) consent to the use of *my* cells. When you recogize an embryo as human life automatically endowed with inalienable rights, it follows that we should get its consent to use its cells, which we can't do, so we shouldn't use them.
>> Should parents be forced to keep a child without a brain alive...
Firstly, this is rare and only on the periphery of the central issue at hand. To answer your question, though, I'll quote from my previous post: it is "...wrong that parents would prematurely end an infant's life." Note the use of "prematurely".
In fact, I have a cousin who had an encephalitic baby, and she cared for him for several weeks before he finally died. I think, in fact, she did have his organs donated after he passed away. That, in my view, was **such** the right thing to do on every level.
Yay! I appreciate the sincere feedback. Now, on with the conversation...
>> So we're human beings, unique individuals of the human species. We can't divide to form two human beings, or merge with another to form a single human being, right?
Unique individuals of the human species, yes. Can't divide or merge, yes.
>> OTOH, generic human cells are not unique. Do you really want to remove uniqueness from the definition of human being?
A very good question. I'll agree that they can't necessarily be said to be, as a collection, forever unique due to the aforementioned possibilities. I'm guessing you'd agree, however, that the cells in question certainly *are* genetically unique. I've not removed that criteria from the definition.
>> "A human life" as defined as some living human tissue, a stem cell (just like any other human cell in culture) certainly is. But "A" human being is an individual composed of differentiated cells. A cell that might become one or several or part of an individual given the right environment is not "an" individual human being.
The distinction between "human life" and "a human being" is indeed very interesting. Firstly, I think it's reasonable to argue that the distinction shouldn't matter much since any embryo you and I talk about is not our own, but is unique and is alreay endowed with its own inalienable rights. Consequently, it's not our decision to make whether it lives or dies.
Next, I'm not sure it **must follow** that "A" human being has to be comprised of differentiated cells. At any given instant it time, it is an individual and, arguably, a human being. Along these lines, who's to say science may someday reveal that a collection of just two cells is already differentiated? 100 years ago, no one could have dreamed of the converstation you and I are having now.
>> If you want fertilized eggs treated as human beings, why would you deny them this standard protection afforded to other human beings?
I wouldn't. In many cases, however, no one ever knew that the new human life existed. No investigation could be expected. When it is know, though, I think death by natural causes should be assumed unless there's a strong reason to believe otherwise.
>> According to the way the word has always been used. It has never applied to individual cells or microscopic masses of generic cells.
I am not a professional biologist, philosopher or ethicist, but I'm skeptical that these disciplies have "always" been in agreement about the definition, or even "always" enjoyed total agreement by their practitioners as to the definition.
>> What makes it different from a dividing "adult" stem cell or cancer cell?
It's reasonble to argue that there's little difference, except that an adult can exercise his own free will over his own cells and can choose to (try to) eliminate the cancer.
>> How would you tell an individual living human cell from a single celled "human being" by looking at the cell?
Again, I'm not a biologist, but I'll posit that it's not an important question in regard to the ethics of the matter at hand.
>> *I* however, do not need the right environment to become a human being.
I'll argue you became a human being when you were conceived, and ever since then you have had to be in an environment where you could survive.
>>...current research seems to be moving toward being able to return any human cell to a totipotent... Are we then to declare all living human cells "human beings"?
This is closely related to the "uniqueness" point above. Obviously, the matter of cloning rears its head too. That's another can of worms I'll ignore for the moment, but I suspect you'll want to come back to it!:-)
>> Check your tense.
I was very specific with my tense for a reason.
>> My point was that the generic cell needs the right environment to _become_ a person, which is entirely different from a person needing the right environment to "survive". In other words, human stem cells (or fertlized eggs) can survive just fine in various different environments, but they need a _specific_ environment to _become_ one or several or part of one people.
I understand your point very clearly, and I hope I've explained mine. I simply do not find your argument compelling enough. Furthermore, I think the issue of life is of such enormous importance, that we should err on the side of caution, on the side of life.
You said: >>1. Because you consider embryos to be people, I should be bound by your beliefs?
The argument that an embryo is not human life has always seemed very "hand-wavey" to me, with heavy use of scientific terminology that can't do justice to the profound question of l-i-f-e. It's profound for philosophical and ethical reasons, and society has to deal with them on that level. I strongly believe that if society is going to err, we should err on the side of caution, on the side of the preservation of life.
Now, if you don't believe embezzlement is wrong, you will indeed be bound by my (and society's) belief to the contrary, because there has been an examination of the ethical issues. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for a dissenter to be bound by the majority's beliefs, especially if it's a matter of profound philosophical or ethical import.
>> An infant cannot give consent to donate its organs any more than an embryo can. However, the parents of dying/dead infants often donate their organs... Is that wrong, by your lights?
It is indeed, "by my lights", wrong that parents would prematurely end and infant's life. (Witholding treatment for a terminally ill person, though, is another question altogether.) I have no qualms whatsoever with next of kin donating the organs of any deceased person.
(1) That this mass of cells doesn't have distinct organs doesn't mean it's not a individual human life. Let's not quibble over defining "body".
(2) Failing to implant certainly implies death for such a mass of cells. Slamming into a telephone pole at 60 miles per hour probably implies the same for this mass of cells (and for the mass of cells that is the original poster).
(3) I wouldn't have a problem with a verifiably pregnant woman being able, along with the fathter, to count their child as a dependent for tax purposes.
(4) "Growing people for organs." A red herring. I'll go along with you that far.
(5) It's a fact of life that humans suffer. If one accepts the premise that an embyo is human life (which is not at all irrational), than it follows that you can't kill one human just to benefit another that might be suffering.
You said: >> Anti: But it's a human being! A microscopic brainless little human being and taking cells from it is murder!
>> Pro: No, it's a mass of generic totipotent cells.
You and I are masses of non-generic cells, so?
>> If it makes it into a mother's womb, it might (about 1/2 fail to implant) become twins, triplets, or it might merge with another blastula to form a single individual.
Pretty amazing how it works, huh? But why does it make it any less a human life?
>> Or it might fail to implant and be expelled as waste.
People die every day. That doesn't mean they weren't a human life before dying, does it?
>> If we start declaring that fertilized eggs are human beings, do we then investigate every woman who has an early miscarriage for suspicion of murder or neglect (too much excercise, coffee or stress can cause a zygote to fail to implant)?
Not any more than we investigate folks that get in car accidents or whose loved ones die of cancer.
>> Better to stick with our current definition of "human being": unique individual of the human species, rather than redefine human being to mean one or more or part of something that might become a human being if inserted in the right environment...
Current definition of "human being" according to whom? But I'll bite anyway. What makes the first cell after fertilization any less a human life that after it has been dividing for a while? You haven't convinced me. Furthermore, don't **you** need the right environment in order to live? Lacking the evironment to continue to live doesn't mean you weren't living before. Just ask a drowned person. (Then again, they might not respond too quickly. Maybe he wasn't a human life after all!)
I don't think religous belief need have anything to do with the assertion that life begins at conception. For me, I have simply seen no argument that the first cell after conception is any less "life" than after it has been dividing for a while. Believing that it is an individual life, then, leads to the conclusion that it is as worthy of protection as my own 30-year-old life.
You said: >> Though the harvesting of cells from embryos does stop a life from occuring, it has not actually developed into life - it exsists as rapidly dividing cells.
Irrespective of your religous beliefs, it seems this only so much hand-waving. You and I are masses of cells, too; not dividing as "rapidly" as we once were, granted.
I have yet to see any convincing argument that the first cell resulting from fertilization is any less "life" than after 3, 6, or 9 months of division, or even after 30 years of division, for that matter.
You said: >> People seem to think that their bodies do not belong to them, for some strange reason. (to me.)
The point with pro-lifers is that it is not the mother's body she's choosing over. It's the body of a brand-new human that has its own inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So no, it does not "belong" to the mother in that line of reasoning.
Importantly, that line of reasoning need not at all coincide with religous conviction, nor need it coincide with a luddite mentality.
(1) a small company where you can strut your stuff without being pigeon-holed like you would at a giant company. You should be able to work on a greater diversity of things this way.
(2) You should also shoot for a company that has its act together as far as engineering process or discipline. There are *some* places that aren't run by PHBs.
(3) Another interest lifter is getting in on the ground floor of a new project (or even company) such that you might be able to be involved in some architecture and design efforts, maybe even requirements or process definition.
(4) Check into cool embedded software realms such as telecom, medical, or military work. There's **so** much more out there than desktop and server software.
I've been fortunate to have jobs meeting some of these criteria since graduating "several" years ago with a Bachellor's in CS. The diveristy of work I've enjoyed, from device drivers to XML databases to packet queueing software, has kept me from being bored.
Also, try to build up a network of people you like working with. Few things make a better work environment than people you respect professionally and like personally.
This design depends on having two towers, which must increase cost, I'd expect. What if a single tower had a couple of "floors" at the top to house some horizontally mounted turbines (of a diameter almost equal to the width of the building)? You might also be able to (partially?) shield them from view.
Slashdot Mirror
Your ethical stance requires a dogmatic definition of when life begins
And so does yours.
I think most English speakers of our day would attach some negative connotation of intolerant religous doctrine or of illogical blatherings when the words "dogma" or "dogmatic" are used. I certainly took it in that sense, and I suspect this is the sense you mean it in.
So I looked it up. I think American Heritage's 3rd definition best characterizes my ethical stance.
My arguments have been no more "dogmatic" than yours or any other poster's, and have certainly been less than some, given that I have always provided a logical argument to back them up or refute attacks on them.
>> So you have no opposition to deriving stem cells from therapeutic cloning?
This is where the slippery slope starts, in my opinion, but it's an important question, and I think you did right by asking it.
Basically, I don't have much of a problem with using the stem cells, with the owner's permission, to culture them for theraputic use.
You said:
...and b) being strangled by you was their pursuit of happiness.
...does not hold unless you accept that the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of the would-be mother. And that requires some sort of dogmatic position.
>> How did you arrive at that without religious conviction or luddite mentality?
As stated earlier, religion need have nothing to do with this, and in general I am in favor of scientific advance. Now, it *certainly* is a question of ethics, and society must decide on ethical grounds.
I am positing that life must not be snuffed out but for rare and special cases. I have found no pro-abortion-on-demand argument that meets the "rare and special case" criteria. The argument of mothers that abort their children *is*, in the large majority of cases, a matter of "it's not in my best interest". It may be social stigma, economic difficulties, or loosing the body of her youth, but those reasons pale in comparison to the matter of l-i-f-e. Now, couple that with the fact that most children are conceived resulting from a consentual act by their parents, and the convenience logic above apprears ludicrously unjust.
That is taking an ethical stance, not dogma.
>> No that is illogical unless unless a) Strangling the person was in your pursuit of happiness...
Suppose it was? That doesn't make it right, now does it?
>>
Why "and"? But anyway, let's say it wasn't in their pursuit of happiness.
My point was that society should **absolutely** tell me what to do with my hand if I'm strangling somebody to death, and it should be a resounding "STOP!" that society responds with, because my freedom to act is **way** subservient to the other's right to live.
>>
I invite you to point out any "dogma" in my previous arguments, and please be sure to explain how my defense of an ethical position is dogma while your defense of your position is not.
You said: ...No... Then it is *not* in any way shape or form an *individual* life.
...most of the anti-abortion people are the same ones who are up in arms whenever anyone talks about teaching people about birth control.
>> Can an embryo exist on its own outside of its host body?
Non sequitur. That simply is not a rational argument. It *is* perfectly rational to reply, though you don't want to seem to agree, that neither can a newborn exist without care. At what point, then, does life begin in your view? It seems you are chosing to ignore this fundamental question.
>> Of course, you will not accept this, yet you will be completely unable to come up with *rational* refutation of my point.
A rational argument should be made devoid of emotion, using logic and reason. I suggest you cannot point out any reason why my arguments have been irrational, other than that I don't agree with you.
>> Abortion and similar opponents are, in general, (no offense to you personally) about the most disgusting sub-human scum on the planet.
Your ad hominem attacks do you a disservice.
>>
Please stick to the topic at hand.
>> So rather than allow a person to choose what she allows to grow inside her own freaking body, they want to force her by law to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and then 18 years of raising a child.... these people are claiming that having sex is a crime....
I have not at any point suggested that having sex is a crime. I have presented a rational case that if a couple engages in sex, and it results in a new life, the preservation of life supersedes all other rights. They should be bound (by law, in my opinion) to look after the welfare of that life.
Certainly a reasonable solution is adoption. Now, if they don't want to be bound to look after the welfare of a child they might conceive, then they both have sure-fire alternatives available to them to prevent conception of any new life.
You may not like that argument, but it is not irrational. I suspect that folks that don't like such an argument also didn't like it when their parents disciplined them for misbehaving.
>> If you want kids, and choose to have them, then that is totally your business...
I'm glad to find we agree on something, but the fundamental question remains, when is it a child?
I appreciate your sincere argument. I'll give you sincere rebuttal.
...what if she can't afford to raise it? Will you pay her child support? Will you adopt the child? Or would you support laws that would bring more suffering into the world?
>> That starting cell is a part of her the same way a fingernail or a skin cell is...
The embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. It is then "its own owner", if you will. The rest of that paragraph talks of cells that truly are hers. She can do what she wants with them.
>> An earlier point said would you charge a woman with murder for exercising too hard and losing her zygote.
I said one should assume that most miscarriages are by natural causes unless there are strong reasons to suspect otherwise. "Willfully working out too hard" would be something she would have to live with, because it would be useless to try to prove otherwise.
>> I'm not convinced of your argument that it is a life.
Is that because of some preconceived notion, or because you have a rational argument to the contrary. I sincerely welcome a rational rebuttal.
>>
In the *vast* majority of cases, she is the bearer of a new life because of a conscious decision she and the father made, knowing of the possibility of new life. They must live with the consecuences, which may include offering the child up for adoption. There are *millions* of couples that would like that chance.
You said:
>> So why does the brand-new human's rights supersede those of the woman's? I can't pursue happiness on your property without your permission... So why should this be different? If the new human is so determined at a shot at life, maybe it should leave the womb and gestate elsewhere - or optionally it should request permission to gestate in the woman's womb.
In the *vast* majority of cases, the brand-new human is in the mother's womb because of a conscious decision on her part and the father's to engage in an activity they knew might result in a brand-new human. I fully support their right to engage in that activity (call me pro-choice!), but both should live up to the responsibility that goes with that right, namely that the brand-new human's right to life does absolutely supersede their convenience.
I have the right to my own body, but I can't wrap my hands around someone's neck and say after their death: "they should have asked to be in someone else's hands." That is, in my view, a logical extension of your line of reasoning, which is of course absurd.
>> According to the defintion of "individual", it does.
Why?
>> You might switch the context of "an individual" to merely "a single thing", but then how is your mass of cells different from a tumor or clump of "adult" stem cells?
It's not much different. All the cells in question have a single owner, and we should get his permission before doing anything with them
It appears to me that all of your arguments revolve around this theme, and please correct me if I'm wrong:
"It's not a life yet because look what I can do with it now that I can't do after point X in its development."
In my view, you've missed that they aren't *your* cells. They're not even the *mother's* cells. They're completely unique. They're living and growing. They are, then, a brand-new created agent that is endowed with every right you and I so cherish.
You said:
>> Why do Anti-ESCR folks keep using the generai term "human life" when they mean a specific "human being"?
They use the term because, as in my case, they do not think the distinction is relevant to the debate.
>> Are you also against tissue culture and organ transplant?
No, as long as *I* (or my next of kin if I'm dead) consent to the use of *my* cells. When you recogize an embryo as human life automatically endowed with inalienable rights, it follows that we should get its consent to use its cells, which we can't do, so we shouldn't use them.
>> Should parents be forced to keep a child without a brain alive...
Firstly, this is rare and only on the periphery of the central issue at hand. To answer your question, though, I'll quote from my previous post: it is "...wrong that parents would prematurely end an infant's life." Note the use of "prematurely".
In fact, I have a cousin who had an encephalitic baby, and she cared for him for several weeks before he finally died. I think, in fact, she did have his organs donated after he passed away. That, in my view, was **such** the right thing to do on every level.
Yay! I appreciate the sincere feedback. Now, on with the conversation...
...current research seems to be moving toward being able to return any human cell to a totipotent... Are we then to declare all living human cells "human beings"?
:-)
>> So we're human beings, unique individuals of the human species. We can't divide to form two human beings, or merge with another to form a single human being, right?
Unique individuals of the human species, yes. Can't divide or merge, yes.
>> OTOH, generic human cells are not unique. Do you really want to remove uniqueness from the definition of human being?
A very good question. I'll agree that they can't necessarily be said to be, as a collection, forever unique due to the aforementioned possibilities. I'm guessing you'd agree, however, that the cells in question certainly *are* genetically unique. I've not removed that criteria from the definition.
>> "A human life" as defined as some living human tissue, a stem cell (just like any other human cell in culture) certainly is. But "A" human being is an individual composed of differentiated cells. A cell that might become one or several or part of an individual given the right environment is not "an" individual human being.
The distinction between "human life" and "a human being" is indeed very interesting. Firstly, I think it's reasonable to argue that the distinction shouldn't matter much since any embryo you and I talk about is not our own, but is unique and is alreay endowed with its own inalienable rights. Consequently, it's not our decision to make whether it lives or dies.
Next, I'm not sure it **must follow** that "A" human being has to be comprised of differentiated cells. At any given instant it time, it is an individual and, arguably, a human being. Along these lines, who's to say science may someday reveal that a collection of just two cells is already differentiated? 100 years ago, no one could have dreamed of the converstation you and I are having now.
>> If you want fertilized eggs treated as human beings, why would you deny them this standard protection afforded to other human beings?
I wouldn't. In many cases, however, no one ever knew that the new human life existed. No investigation could be expected. When it is know, though, I think death by natural causes should be assumed unless there's a strong reason to believe otherwise.
>> According to the way the word has always been used. It has never applied to individual cells or microscopic masses of generic cells.
I am not a professional biologist, philosopher or ethicist, but I'm skeptical that these disciplies have "always" been in agreement about the definition, or even "always" enjoyed total agreement by their practitioners as to the definition.
>> What makes it different from a dividing "adult" stem cell or cancer cell?
It's reasonble to argue that there's little difference, except that an adult can exercise his own free will over his own cells and can choose to (try to) eliminate the cancer.
>> How would you tell an individual living human cell from a single celled "human being" by looking at the cell?
Again, I'm not a biologist, but I'll posit that it's not an important question in regard to the ethics of the matter at hand.
>> *I* however, do not need the right environment to become a human being.
I'll argue you became a human being when you were conceived, and ever since then you have had to be in an environment where you could survive.
>>
This is closely related to the "uniqueness" point above. Obviously, the matter of cloning rears its head too. That's another can of worms I'll ignore for the moment, but I suspect you'll want to come back to it!
>> Check your tense.
I was very specific with my tense for a reason.
>> My point was that the generic cell needs the right environment to _become_ a person, which is entirely different from a person needing the right environment to "survive". In other words, human stem cells (or fertlized eggs) can survive just fine in various different environments, but they need a _specific_ environment to _become_ one or several or part of one people.
I understand your point very clearly, and I hope I've explained mine. I simply do not find your argument compelling enough. Furthermore, I think the issue of life is of such enormous importance, that we should err on the side of caution, on the side of life.
You said:
>>1. Because you consider embryos to be people, I should be bound by your beliefs?
The argument that an embryo is not human life has always seemed very "hand-wavey" to me, with heavy use of scientific terminology that can't do justice to the profound question of l-i-f-e. It's profound for philosophical and ethical reasons, and society has to deal with them on that level. I strongly believe that if society is going to err, we should err on the side of caution, on the side of the preservation of life.
Now, if you don't believe embezzlement is wrong, you will indeed be bound by my (and society's) belief to the contrary, because there has been an examination of the ethical issues. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for a dissenter to be bound by the majority's beliefs, especially if it's a matter of profound philosophical or ethical import.
>> An infant cannot give consent to donate its organs any more than an embryo can. However, the parents of dying/dead infants often donate their organs... Is that wrong, by your lights?
It is indeed, "by my lights", wrong that parents would prematurely end and infant's life. (Witholding treatment for a terminally ill person, though, is another question altogether.) I have no qualms whatsoever with next of kin donating the organs of any deceased person.
(1) That this mass of cells doesn't have distinct organs doesn't mean it's not a individual human life. Let's not quibble over defining "body".
(2) Failing to implant certainly implies death for such a mass of cells. Slamming into a telephone pole at 60 miles per hour probably implies the same for this mass of cells (and for the mass of cells that is the original poster).
(3) I wouldn't have a problem with a verifiably pregnant woman being able, along with the fathter, to count their child as a dependent for tax purposes.
(4) "Growing people for organs." A red herring. I'll go along with you that far.
(5) It's a fact of life that humans suffer. If one accepts the premise that an embyo is human life (which is not at all irrational), than it follows that you can't kill one human just to benefit another that might be suffering.
You said:
>> Anti: But it's a human being! A microscopic brainless little human being and taking cells from it is murder!
>> Pro: No, it's a mass of generic totipotent cells.
You and I are masses of non-generic cells, so?
>> If it makes it into a mother's womb, it might (about 1/2 fail to implant) become twins, triplets, or it might merge with another blastula to form a single individual.
Pretty amazing how it works, huh? But why does it make it any less a human life?
>> Or it might fail to implant and be expelled as waste.
People die every day. That doesn't mean they weren't a human life before dying, does it?
>> If we start declaring that fertilized eggs are human beings, do we then investigate every woman who has an early miscarriage for suspicion of murder or neglect (too much excercise, coffee or stress can cause a zygote to fail to implant)?
Not any more than we investigate folks that get in car accidents or whose loved ones die of cancer.
>> Better to stick with our current definition of "human being": unique individual of the human species, rather than redefine human being to mean one or more or part of something that might become a human being if inserted in the right environment...
Current definition of "human being" according to whom? But I'll bite anyway. What makes the first cell after fertilization any less a human life that after it has been dividing for a while? You haven't convinced me. Furthermore, don't **you** need the right environment in order to live? Lacking the evironment to continue to live doesn't mean you weren't living before. Just ask a drowned person. (Then again, they might not respond too quickly. Maybe he wasn't a human life after all!)
I don't think religous belief need have anything to do with the assertion that life begins at conception. For me, I have simply seen no argument that the first cell after conception is any less "life" than after it has been dividing for a while. Believing that it is an individual life, then, leads to the conclusion that it is as worthy of protection as my own 30-year-old life.
You said:
>> Though the harvesting of cells from embryos does stop a life from occuring, it has not actually developed into life - it exsists as rapidly dividing cells.
Irrespective of your religous beliefs, it seems this only so much hand-waving. You and I are masses of cells, too; not dividing as "rapidly" as we once were, granted.
I have yet to see any convincing argument that the first cell resulting from fertilization is any less "life" than after 3, 6, or 9 months of division, or even after 30 years of division, for that matter.
You said:
>> People seem to think that their bodies do not belong to them, for some strange reason. (to me.)
The point with pro-lifers is that it is not the mother's body she's choosing over. It's the body of a brand-new human that has its own inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So no, it does not "belong" to the mother in that line of reasoning.
Importantly, that line of reasoning need not at all coincide with religous conviction, nor need it coincide with a luddite mentality.
...go to work for...
(1) a small company where you can strut your stuff without being pigeon-holed like you would at a giant company. You should be able to work on a greater diversity of things this way.
(2) You should also shoot for a company that has its act together as far as engineering process or discipline. There are *some* places that aren't run by PHBs.
(3) Another interest lifter is getting in on the ground floor of a new project (or even company) such that you might be able to be involved in some architecture and design efforts, maybe even requirements or process definition.
(4) Check into cool embedded software realms such as telecom, medical, or military work. There's **so** much more out there than desktop and server software.
I've been fortunate to have jobs meeting some of these criteria since graduating "several" years ago with a Bachellor's in CS. The diveristy of work I've enjoyed, from device drivers to XML databases to packet queueing software, has kept me from being bored.
Also, try to build up a network of people you like working with. Few things make a better work environment than people you respect professionally and like personally.
This design depends on having two towers, which must increase cost, I'd expect. What if a single tower had a couple of "floors" at the top to house some horizontally mounted turbines (of a diameter almost equal to the width of the building)? You might also be able to (partially?) shield them from view.