Thus, killing a woman under 55 would be committing 263532 murders ?
Killing a man under 70-90 would be committing millions of murders ?
You're assuming that an egg or sperm is "a human being".
I'm assuming there's no difference between "human being" and "human organism". And an egg or sperm is not a distinct organism. They are parts of an organism. When they combine, they form a new organism--and that organism only requires nourishment and a friendly environment, in order to develop into an adult.
There has to be a point before which it's not a person yet. Personally, I put that point relatively far in the development of the baby, and it will be hard to decide where it should be.
There has to be a point where we come into existence, yes. And we know that point, as I said above. You-the-human-organism came into existence at fertilization.
You want to add on a criterion for personhood, more than just being a human being. A level of development that qualifies human beings for this notion of "personhood". You think that you were once a human organism that wasn't a human person yet.
In that light, I think it's weird that pro-lifers are called "superstitious".
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, on consensus. If it's just, "I don't think you'll be able to build enough support to get your laws passed", then OK. I hope you're wrong, but you may well be right.
In other words:
I agree that laws should come about democratically. I want to see social change happen in this area; I want to see a neglected class be treated justly. I hope I'll live to see our society realize what's happening, and do something about it.
If you lived in a country or a time where it seemed hopeless, to right a pervasive injustice... Well, I hope you would still act. Maybe you would fail, but the possibility of achieving justice is worth the effort. (If you lived in a Muslim state of the oppressive variety, wouldn't you work to bring change? To change the consensus?)
That's the heart of liberalism, in the classic sense of the word.
I hope that if I had lived at a time where legal slavery were common, I would have both the clarity, the courage, and the success of someone like William Wilberforce.
And the anti-ESCR crowd objects to said destruction because...well it's not clear. I gather that some of them think a "soul" is injected into a zygote at the moment of its formation. (Of course, the meaning of that sentence hinges on what you think a "soul" is, and I rarely get a satisfactory definition out of religious types.)
Perhaps it's based on the idea that all human beings should be protected the same way, regardless of size or level of development?
Why is "possessing neurons" the criterion? The capacity to feel pain? (So if we kill someone after applying anaesthesia or while they're asleep, is that OK?) You think that while we're still developing the capacity to think, our rights are still "developing"?
You want to classify human beings into "human beings that are persons" and "human beings that aren't". You want to say, "Unless you've finished developing this or that function in your body, you're not a human person yet."
Are you claiming that an embryo fertilized in a Petri dish and that is not moved to a womb is able develop into human? Does it have more chances of developing into a human than a few million sperm cells in a sink? Now that IS fascinating!
An embryo left in a Petri dish has the same chance to develop into an adult as an newborn infant abandoned in the woods.
It's already a "human". It doesn't need to develop into one. It's a human organism--as opposed to sperm or unfertilized eggs, which are part of a human organism. (Even outside the body, it's still a "part" in the same way that a heart outside the body is a "part".) All it needs is nourishment and friendly environment--while sperm is a body part that has to combine with another body part in order to form a new organism.
We can say that an embryo is human since given the right conditions and time, you'll end up with a mature human. But we can say the same thing for an unfertilized egg and some sperm cells. Or for that matter, two teenagers of the opposite sex.
"X is an organism. Given food & a friendly environment, it will 'mature' into an adult human being."
That applies to: Teenagers, toddlers, infants, late-term fetuses, mid-term fetuses, early-term fetuses, embryos, blastocysts, and zygotes.
It doesn't apply to an unfertilized egg with some sperm cells, or two teenagers of the opposite sex.
When the day comes that we can freeze a person, store them, and defrost them later to their original condition, I will start to call embryos people. Until then they are not and I will not.
Really?
If there's anything medical technology can do with an infant that we couldn't do with adults, will you stop calling infants "people"?
We can say that an embryo is human since given the right conditions and time, you'll end up with a mature human. But we can say the same thing for an unfertilized egg and some sperm cells. Or for that matter, two teenagers of the opposite sex.
I don't think that's a valid comparison.
"X is an organism. Given food & a friendly environment, it will 'mature' into an adult human being."
That applies to: Teenagers, toddlers, infants, late-term fetuses, mid-term fetuses, early-term fetuses, embryos, blastocysts, and zygotes.
It doesn't apply to an unfertilized egg with some sperm cells, or two teenagers of the opposite sex.
The only other clear line of deliniation is birth.
Look at intact dilation and extraction. Birth isn't such a clear line, to many people. (At what point during the birth? At what point during a C-section?)
It is NOT (repeat NOT) that you needed to kill/abort the fetus so as to get stem cells.
The fetus was aborted already. It is now medical waste. The only question is if you can use the medical waste to save lives, or not.
What are you talking about? Stem cell lines are not derived from the remains of abortions!
Why is this flagged as informative?
Note: I think you're mixing this up with unused-but-still-living embryos that were created for in-vitro fertilization. Embryos that are waiting to be implanted. Once a woman gets pregnant, the rest of the embryos are often destroyed--though there is also such a thing as embryo adoption.
If there are any research institutions affiliated with the lab, the pox infects them too. If anyone in a laboratory affiliated with a teaching hospital or a major university -or any other research institution even partially dependent on federal grant money- goes near an embryonic stem cell, or even writes a paper detailing a meta-analysis of embryonic stem cell experiments done in other countries, the entire institution will have to shut down.
I'm curious about this--do you have references I can look into?
"Except that many people object to ESC because they think it will lead to more abortions. It won't.
Using a medically-precise definition of abortion as "ending a pregnancy", no. Using the definition most of those people are probably thinking of? Killing a human at the embryonic stage of development, whether implanted or not? Yes, it will.
If you want to correct people's terminology, please do so. If you want to argue that killing an embryo is not ethically significant, then do so. But don't use terminology to obscure the substance.
And many people argue along the lines of "potential life." This is dubious reasoning when talking about leftover embryos from IVF: 99.9999% of the leftovers will never be carried to term.
I agree that "potential life" is dubious reasoning.
They're not unethical just because they follow a different set of ethics. If you disagree with what's being done, don't accept the treatment. If you do, there is nothing unethical about it.
If homeless people were being abducted and harvested for organs, you wouldn't just say "don't accept the treatment". (I hope.)
If embryos are morally & ethically equivalent to humans at more advanced stages of development--which is the premise of most opposition to ESCR--then your comments make no sense. Anyone who accepts that premise will (or should) treat the ESC issue the same way as harvesting homeless peole for organs.
There multiple mechanisms emergency contraceptives/the Pill. (The two are the same drug.)
1.) Prevent the release of the egg.
2.) Make it more difficult for sperm to reach the egg.
3.) Affect the endometrial wall, making it more difficult for the blastocyst to implant.
The third one can only happen if the first two fail, so it's not the primary mechanism, but that's where the concern is with emergency contraceptives. (Note: There's also some controversy over the significance of the third mechanism.)
This will not lead to abortions, because if you know you have an embryo, it's useless as far as ESC goes.
Yes, that's accurate. And implantation certainly a medically significant event. But it's a distinction without an ethical difference--unless you think that implantation is a threshold that affects the ethics of the situation.
2. ESC lines have been established. You won't need to destroy an embryo each time you need ESC, just use from the existing lines.
Yes, and that raises a real ethical quandary, even if we assume destroying an embryo is homicide. What do you do with "tainted fruits"? What do we do with medical treatments that are based on past unethical acts?
If someone killed you in order to make your organs available for transplant, what should society do with those organs? Should we use them, or not? Let them go to waste? Encourage copycats?
There are lots of details to work out. Not easy.
3. Induced pluripotent stem cells and adult stem cells will probably make the debate over ESC much ado about nothing as far as treatments go, but ESC have been invaluable to research already.
If we can learn to grow specifically an organ, then you're right.
But growing a clone of you in order to destroy it for parts? They've mademovies about that. Do you really define "natural people" in a way excludes clones from being people?
The only way your comment makes sense is with the assumption that a human at the "embryo" stage isn't yet a "person". And if you want to say that, you need to make it explicit--don't take it for granted. And you'd better have a pretty clear understanding of why. The human race has a poor history of deciding who of us are "people".
On top of that, conservatives tend to be wary of other acts that don't involve the destruction of an embryo, but are conceptually close. For example, conservatives often oppose emergency contraception,
That's not a matter of being "conceptually close" to destruction of embryos. One of the mechanisms of emergency contraception (and the Pill) is destruction of embryos--preventing implantation.
I bet you didn't realize that "destroying an embryo" isn't necessarily the same as "abortion", did you? By the technical medical definition, "abortion" is ending a pregnancy, and we mark the beginning of pregnancy at the moment of implantation. (And there are sensible medical reasons for these divisions--but those distinctions are only relevant in some contexts.) So if you prevent implantation, they call it "contraception", not abortion--even though the fertilized blastocyst is being killed.
(Note: By some definitions, "embryo" only applies after implantation. But by that definition, the debate isn't about "embryonic" stem cell research--it would be about "blastocystic" or "zygotic" stem cell research.)
In other words, this website is bordering on misinformation. Technically correct misinformation, but misleading information.
some even regular contraception.
To my knowledge, that typically comes from a theological disapproval of birth control, unrelated to destruction of embryos. Most often from Catholics. It's about the question, "Should we be taking control of getting pregnant out of God's hands?" It's not about a "every sperm is sacred" idea.
It may be for some... Hmm, actually, I have no idea what the breakdown is.
I would not be surprised if many conservatives were opposed to research on existing embryonic stem cell lines.
Of course. It's the same question as, "Should we use the results of Nazi medical research?" It's a difficult ethical question. Once the harm has been done, can we use the "tainted fruits"?
It's embryonic stem cell research that conservatives don't like. Adult stem cell research is fine.
It's not even embryonic stem cell research. It's destruction of embryos. Meaning:
1.) Bush's policy was to fund ESCR from already-existing lines.
2.) There are various attempts to derive ESC lines that don't require destruction of embryos.
"With this development in China, suddenly playing god might not sound so bad."
"Playing god" is vague & ill-defined. Talking about it that way abstracts the issue away from the actual concern of those who oppose destruction of embryos. Why not be specific?
Namely: It's about legalized organlegging. As treatments emerge, we'll find out whether they're willing to sacrifice other human beings for their own health & longevity.
Or, we'll find out whether or not they really believe embryos are human beings.
1.) After you've put the dough in the pan, sprinkle sugar on top of it before you put it in the oven.
2.) If the top crust of your bread tends to be too dry, then cover the baking bread pan with tinfoil part-way into the process. Maybe... 10 to 15 minutes before you're ready to take it out of the oven.
Slashdot Mirror
There was an episode of the Outer Limits, too.
You're assuming that an egg or sperm is "a human being".
I'm assuming there's no difference between "human being" and "human organism". And an egg or sperm is not a distinct organism. They are parts of an organism. When they combine, they form a new organism--and that organism only requires nourishment and a friendly environment, in order to develop into an adult.
See my earlier comment.
There has to be a point where we come into existence, yes. And we know that point, as I said above. You-the-human-organism came into existence at fertilization.
You want to add on a criterion for personhood, more than just being a human being. A level of development that qualifies human beings for this notion of "personhood". You think that you were once a human organism that wasn't a human person yet.
In that light, I think it's weird that pro-lifers are called "superstitious".
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, on consensus. If it's just, "I don't think you'll be able to build enough support to get your laws passed", then OK. I hope you're wrong, but you may well be right.
In other words:
I agree that laws should come about democratically. I want to see social change happen in this area; I want to see a neglected class be treated justly. I hope I'll live to see our society realize what's happening, and do something about it.
If you lived in a country or a time where it seemed hopeless, to right a pervasive injustice... Well, I hope you would still act. Maybe you would fail, but the possibility of achieving justice is worth the effort. (If you lived in a Muslim state of the oppressive variety, wouldn't you work to bring change? To change the consensus?)
That's the heart of liberalism, in the classic sense of the word.
I hope that if I had lived at a time where legal slavery were common, I would have both the clarity, the courage, and the success of someone like William Wilberforce.
Perhaps it's based on the idea that all human beings should be protected the same way, regardless of size or level of development?
Why is "possessing neurons" the criterion? The capacity to feel pain? (So if we kill someone after applying anaesthesia or while they're asleep, is that OK?) You think that while we're still developing the capacity to think, our rights are still "developing"?
You want to classify human beings into "human beings that are persons" and "human beings that aren't". You want to say, "Unless you've finished developing this or that function in your body, you're not a human person yet."
I don't see why disagreement is "superstition".
An embryo left in a Petri dish has the same chance to develop into an adult as an newborn infant abandoned in the woods.
It's already a "human". It doesn't need to develop into one. It's a human organism--as opposed to sperm or unfertilized eggs, which are part of a human organism. (Even outside the body, it's still a "part" in the same way that a heart outside the body is a "part".) All it needs is nourishment and friendly environment--while sperm is a body part that has to combine with another body part in order to form a new organism.
See what I said elsewhere:
What on earth?
How did Bush "equating all kinds of stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research"?
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Really?
If there's anything medical technology can do with an infant that we couldn't do with adults, will you stop calling infants "people"?
I don't think that's a valid comparison.
"X is an organism. Given food & a friendly environment, it will 'mature' into an adult human being."
That applies to: Teenagers, toddlers, infants, late-term fetuses, mid-term fetuses, early-term fetuses, embryos, blastocysts, and zygotes.
It doesn't apply to an unfertilized egg with some sperm cells, or two teenagers of the opposite sex.
Look at intact dilation and extraction. Birth isn't such a clear line, to many people. (At what point during the birth? At what point during a C-section?)
So, you're claiming that a unimplanted embryo is equivalent to a sperm? Fascinating scientific & ethical reasoning.
Not really. They are, for all intents and purposes, "waiting to be aborted", and most often are.
Note: There's such a thing a embryo adoption.
What are you talking about? Stem cell lines are not derived from the remains of abortions!
Why is this flagged as informative?
Note: I think you're mixing this up with unused-but-still-living embryos that were created for in-vitro fertilization. Embryos that are waiting to be implanted. Once a woman gets pregnant, the rest of the embryos are often destroyed--though there is also such a thing as embryo adoption.
I'm curious about this--do you have references I can look into?
If we figure out a way to split you into multiple individuals, does that mean you weren't really human?
Using a medically-precise definition of abortion as "ending a pregnancy", no. Using the definition most of those people are probably thinking of? Killing a human at the embryonic stage of development, whether implanted or not? Yes, it will.
If you want to correct people's terminology, please do so. If you want to argue that killing an embryo is not ethically significant, then do so. But don't use terminology to obscure the substance.
I agree that "potential life" is dubious reasoning.
If homeless people were being abducted and harvested for organs, you wouldn't just say "don't accept the treatment". (I hope.)
If embryos are morally & ethically equivalent to humans at more advanced stages of development--which is the premise of most opposition to ESCR--then your comments make no sense. Anyone who accepts that premise will (or should) treat the ESC issue the same way as harvesting homeless peole for organs.
Cute, but mostly irrelevant to what I actually said: That every time we've tried to say "those humans aren't people", we've realized our mistake.
Whoops. Typo. Should start, "There are multiple mechanisms in emergency contraceptives/the Pill."
There multiple mechanisms emergency contraceptives/the Pill. (The two are the same drug.)
1.) Prevent the release of the egg.
2.) Make it more difficult for sperm to reach the egg.
3.) Affect the endometrial wall, making it more difficult for the blastocyst to implant.
The third one can only happen if the first two fail, so it's not the primary mechanism, but that's where the concern is with emergency contraceptives. (Note: There's also some controversy over the significance of the third mechanism.)
Yes, that's accurate. And implantation certainly a medically significant event. But it's a distinction without an ethical difference--unless you think that implantation is a threshold that affects the ethics of the situation.
Yes, and that raises a real ethical quandary, even if we assume destroying an embryo is homicide. What do you do with "tainted fruits"? What do we do with medical treatments that are based on past unethical acts?
If someone killed you in order to make your organs available for transplant, what should society do with those organs? Should we use them, or not? Let them go to waste? Encourage copycats?
There are lots of details to work out. Not easy.
That's what I'm hoping.
If we can learn to grow specifically an organ, then you're right.
But growing a clone of you in order to destroy it for parts? They've made movies about that. Do you really define "natural people" in a way excludes clones from being people?
The only way your comment makes sense is with the assumption that a human at the "embryo" stage isn't yet a "person". And if you want to say that, you need to make it explicit--don't take it for granted. And you'd better have a pretty clear understanding of why. The human race has a poor history of deciding who of us are "people".
That's not a matter of being "conceptually close" to destruction of embryos. One of the mechanisms of emergency contraception (and the Pill) is destruction of embryos--preventing implantation.
I bet you didn't realize that "destroying an embryo" isn't necessarily the same as "abortion", did you? By the technical medical definition, "abortion" is ending a pregnancy, and we mark the beginning of pregnancy at the moment of implantation. (And there are sensible medical reasons for these divisions--but those distinctions are only relevant in some contexts.) So if you prevent implantation, they call it "contraception", not abortion--even though the fertilized blastocyst is being killed.
(Note: By some definitions, "embryo" only applies after implantation. But by that definition, the debate isn't about "embryonic" stem cell research--it would be about "blastocystic" or "zygotic" stem cell research.)
In other words, this website is bordering on misinformation. Technically correct misinformation, but misleading information.
To my knowledge, that typically comes from a theological disapproval of birth control, unrelated to destruction of embryos. Most often from Catholics. It's about the question, "Should we be taking control of getting pregnant out of God's hands?" It's not about a "every sperm is sacred" idea.
It may be for some... Hmm, actually, I have no idea what the breakdown is.
Of course. It's the same question as, "Should we use the results of Nazi medical research?" It's a difficult ethical question. Once the harm has been done, can we use the "tainted fruits"?
It's not even embryonic stem cell research. It's destruction of embryos. Meaning:
1.) Bush's policy was to fund ESCR from already-existing lines.
2.) There are various attempts to derive ESC lines that don't require destruction of embryos.
"Playing god" is vague & ill-defined. Talking about it that way abstracts the issue away from the actual concern of those who oppose destruction of embryos. Why not be specific?
Namely: It's about legalized organlegging. As treatments emerge, we'll find out whether they're willing to sacrifice other human beings for their own health & longevity.
Or, we'll find out whether or not they really believe embryos are human beings.
Another pair of recommendations:
1.) After you've put the dough in the pan, sprinkle sugar on top of it before you put it in the oven.
2.) If the top crust of your bread tends to be too dry, then cover the baking bread pan with tinfoil part-way into the process. Maybe... 10 to 15 minutes before you're ready to take it out of the oven.
Says who?!?
So you're sympathetic to Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research, then?
Wait... I forgot, Bush funded stem cell research. Never mind.