George Bush, "Live Strong" Bracelet... (Page 2)

Obviously you haven't seen the Tri Newbies Online OT forumn . http://www.trinewbies.com/phorum2/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=6

I''m going to weigh in on embryonic stem cell research AND IVF.

If embryo's are people then leaving them in petri dishes (IVF) should be illegal and stopped immediately.

If embryo's are people then embryonic stem cell research is barbaric.

How do we know if they are people or not?

I've had many embryos in me (natural causes). None of them came to term. Were they people? It sure felt like it; I sure hoped desperately that they would become little people. Unfortunately, the cells did not replicate properly and they were never going to become little people (in the cases that my doctor was able to do pathology). Despite the fact that they were a mess of cells, I still considered them my babies. However, my anecdotal, emotional view does not lend validity to the assertion that embryo's are people. Which brings me to the question...

There is the view that an undifferentiated cluster of cells is not a human. And there is the view that an undifferentiated cluster of cells is a human. What validates either view?

And an ancillary question: If you do believe that an undifferentiated cluster of cells is a human, how can you, in good conscience, support IVF?

Excellent questions, Renee. You asked how do we know if embryos are people. If you ask 10 people that, they'll give you 10 different answers. It's akin to the abortion debate. Some people believe life begins at conception, others would argue that it isn't a person until the fetus is viable outside the womb. And anywhere inbetween. Scientists and medical ethicists don't even have a consensus.

And personally, I don't see how you could not support ESSR but think IVF is OK.

You know, I've heard this expression "life begins at conception" so many times but I've only recently stopped to wonder: "What do they define as life?"

Life, the way I think of life, does not begin at conception. That's not been my personal experience. Cell replication certainly begins at conception.

What is "life"? Who gets to answer this question, authoritatively?

Dude...that's the question. Nobody, is my guess, except maybe the creator (if you believe in one). Here's an interesting link on the subject: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm

I would split that into two question:

1. Are embryos human beings?
2. Are embryos human persons?

The answer to #1 seems to be objectively, Yes.

The answer to #2 is tougher. I believe they are, but there is no empirical evidence for it. Neither is there empirical evidence for my being a human person or you being a human person.

Yet, it seems to be true that there is such a thing as a human person. As we talked about before, that's what Jefferson was writing about when he wrote. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I think when he is talking about created men he is talking about a human person, something distict from simply being an animal.

But where is the line that differentiates a human being (a biological organism) from a human person (a moral and unalienable right holding creature)?

Show me the line that shows, without a doubt, that it is at this stage of human developement or at that stage. Without that empirical evidence, I'd argue that you must err on it being at the moment of conception. Otherwise you risk killing a human person.

Don, do you mind telling me why you think it is wrong to bring about life using IVF technology? I's a personal question, so I don't mind at all if you prefer not to.

I think sentience is a big part of it. Adults who can't think or make decisions for themselves have their rights transferred to appropriate caregivers. I don't think that's the whole story, because obviously Terry Schiavo's husband (rightly) wasn't allowed to out-and-out euthanize her. The legal definition of being a right-holding human person is being born. Before that, it's up to the judges/philosophers/religious leaders/scientists/parents to decide for themselves. My feeling that only God knows, and if there is know god, then no one knows. Beyond that, it's just a matter of making a personal decision based on your morals, values and education.

And of course if you don't believe the law, lobbying your congressmen.

I want to assure you that I would never "argue" your religious beliefs. Your beliefs are your beliefs. And I think your sensitivity to the subject is commendable.

(I'm a literalist. Duh.)

First of all, I share your view that ESSR is a good thing. But it's important to understand that generally the people that are against it feel that way because of their religious belief that a person, with a soul, is created at conception. It's based on Faith, and Faith can't be argued with or disproven. It's a valid argument because it's based on deeply-held beliefs. And that's why it is debated.  My hope is that everyone who has a strong opion on the matter (or on any matter, for that matter) does their homework and truly understands both sides of the issue before forming (and arguing) their opinion.

I'm not disagreeing with you. You said "It is amazing to me that this issue is even debated", and I was just explaining exactly why it is debated. No matter what side of the issue you're on, you can agree that it is a polarizing issue, and because of that people have strong opinions one way or the other.

But think about it this way: if because of your faith you belive that a blastocyst is a person, endowed by the creator with an immortal soul, then it's not a stretch to equate destroying that "person" with murder. Since murder clearly is illegal, and not illegal based on religious beliefs but rather simple morality and social morays, it can be argued that ESSR should also be illegal for the same reasons it's illegal to whack your neighbor. Therefore, why is it "wrong" for someone with those beliefs to lobby their congress people to stop this practice?

Personally, I would rather see people spend as much time and energy to stop what is going on in Darfur, Rwanda (and even Iraq), where it is inarguable that innocent people are needlessly dying.  But everyone is free to pick their battles, I guess.

Don,

You believe (correct me if I paraphrase incorrectly) that our rights come from your Creator. I contend that we are born with those rights; that they are intrinsic to life, like breathing. There will always be those who want to rob of our birthrights but that does not negate the fact that they are our birthrights. We are born free; it is our fellow man who seeks to rob us of our freedoms. Freedom is not something we acquire; it is something intrinsic to our very nature.  In the history of man, it was never the Creator who subjugated men; men subjugated men. Likewise, it was not a Creator who gave us freedom; through social evolution we have fought for and codified our rights to protect us against our fellow man who would be despot. I don't need a Creator to tell me I'm free; I know it just like I know that I breathe.

All animals are born free. That we humans use/abuse animals for our own needs, wants, and sport make them no less entitled to their freedom.

Put down that chipotle right now and put your hands up!

Can you expand on what you mean by social evolution?

I agree that we are born with those rights and that you don't need a creator to tell you that you have them. Social evolution means to me that human beings created rights and that we did not posses them before their creation.