Embryonic Stem Cells
Brutal Hugger has a post on SayUncle about a new process that supposedly allows the use of embryonic stem cells for research without destroying the embryo.
There are still a few things wrong:
First, when you take out one of the 8 cells “for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome” or for male/female verification, or for blonde hair, or whatever you like… There is a problem to me. That coupled with abortion adds up to the ability to throw away any baby that isn’t to your liking.
Second, why not avoid the whole controversy when adult stem-cells are more useful?
In comments, there's a little debate going on which is no surprise. Here are my thoughts:
One of the very few responsibilities that I’m willing to give the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property its citizens from aggressors, or at least to punish the aggressors when that life, liberty or property has been damaged. THAT is why I do believe it is necessary for the government to have some definition of what “life” is. I say it begins at conception. You may disagree. Some say that living in a “persistent vegitative state” isn’t life either. Maybe. The point is, unless we define life, how can we define murder which is the termination of innocent life?
So when does life begin? Conception? tgirsch would scoff at the idea. But does that mean that the baby is merely a “lump of flesh” until its head emerges? I believe such an assertion to be much more absurd than the former. Not having a clear-cut step in between, I would err on the side of being “extra protective” of life and advocate that government define life as beginning at conception.
There are still a few things wrong:
First, when you take out one of the 8 cells “for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome” or for male/female verification, or for blonde hair, or whatever you like… There is a problem to me. That coupled with abortion adds up to the ability to throw away any baby that isn’t to your liking.
Second, why not avoid the whole controversy when adult stem-cells are more useful?
In comments, there's a little debate going on which is no surprise. Here are my thoughts:
One of the very few responsibilities that I’m willing to give the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property its citizens from aggressors, or at least to punish the aggressors when that life, liberty or property has been damaged. THAT is why I do believe it is necessary for the government to have some definition of what “life” is. I say it begins at conception. You may disagree. Some say that living in a “persistent vegitative state” isn’t life either. Maybe. The point is, unless we define life, how can we define murder which is the termination of innocent life?
So when does life begin? Conception? tgirsch would scoff at the idea. But does that mean that the baby is merely a “lump of flesh” until its head emerges? I believe such an assertion to be much more absurd than the former. Not having a clear-cut step in between, I would err on the side of being “extra protective” of life and advocate that government define life as beginning at conception.
1 Comments:
Excellent point about when life begins.
Until they can definitively demonstrate "when" an unborn child attains the status of being "alive" (which doesn't include some arbitrary number set by the courts and based upon inconclusive science if any) then how can they say definitively that it is not "life" at any stage?
If they cannot definitively demonstrate that the "lump of cells" is NOT life, then common sense and common morality dictate that we err on the side of caution.
Oh, and ask the families of the (admittedly rare but documented...and, if it only saves one life...) people who have woken up from comas after being declared to be in a "persistent vegitative state" whether we should just put them down like dogs just because the docs THINK they may not recover.
Post a Comment
<< Home