Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    At what point does a human being become a human being?

    When the sperm enters the cell?
    When the two nuclei fuse?
    After the first division of the cell?
    When the embryo is settled into the whomb?
    When the nervous system starts developing?
    When the heart starts beating?
    When the fetus can move its limbs?
    When the child can survive outside of the mother?
    When the child is born?
    When self-knowledge develops?

    There is not one special point at which a human being becomes a human being. The process is a gradual one, and with each step the rights of the developing human being increase.
    One this is your opinion, but I would would say the safest position to take would be the one at which a zygote is formed and a life if left alone will be allowed to live and develop.

    Your arguments are fine but the logical outworking are indefensible. Why not kill weaker people and give their organs to stronger people. As soon as you say an one class of people (as you did with "grown up adults") has a more inherant right to life than a another, you open up every category. Why not kill a certain race of people, if society deems it correct. Why not kill people based on beliefs, physical ability etc.
    Last edited by carter437; 10/29/2004 at 04:53 PM.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    One this is your opinion, but I would would say the safest position to take would be the one at which a zygote is formed and a life if left alone will be allowed to live and develop.
    Safest for whom? I think it would be "safest" to assume that pigs are intelligent creatures with the inherent right to live out their natural, free lives. But obviously most people don't make that assumption, and happily eat pork. I don't think it's reasonable to say, "We don't know, so let's be as morally cautious as we possibly can."

    Your arguments are fine but the logical outworking are indefensible.
    I disagree. Although no one wants to face these very difficult moral quandries, we have to. Consider the other side of the coin--you're arguing that a zygote should have as many rights as a person, but ignoring the fact that actual real developed people are dying.

    Why not kill a certain race of people, if society deems it correct. Why not kill people based on beliefs, physical ability etc.
    Well, we do kill people because based on these qualities. Look at the war in Iraq.

    Nareau
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Your arguments are fine but the logical outworking are indefensible. Why not kill weaker people and give their organs to stronger people. As soon as you say an one class of people (as you did with "grown up adults") has a more inherant right to life than a another, you open up every category. Why not kill a certain race of people, if society deems it correct. Why not kill people based on beliefs, physical ability etc.
    Sorry, but you got me totally wrong. I said that in my view, there is not one given point at which a human being becomes a human being, and that during the process of development, more and more rights are given to an individual. For instance, most people think abortion is ok in case the pregnancy threatens to kill the mother. So in that case, the mother has more rights than the unborn child. Abortion is a similar case, and the people who destroy supernumerous fertilized egg cells in an infertility clinic are not accused of mass murder.

    So regardless of what you think is the right way, the society you live in has decided that not every stage of the human development is granted the same rights. I think this is correct because an 8-cell-stage clump of cells is not the same as a baby.

    However, nowhere did I say which rights should be given when. Frankly, I have no idea why you think either every stage of human development has to have the same rights, or we have to accept or condone that weaker people are killed in order to give their organs to the stronger, that one race kills another, or similar things. There simply isn't any connection.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Because those cells should not be created and discarded in the first place.

    In fact, IVF is a prime example of the type of blatant disregard for life that concerns me. Millions of lives are being whimsically created and destroyed in the hopes of generating what amounts to so few births. You would think the process would be perfected by now. Yet, so many cells are discarded, while practitioners make sooooo much $$$$$ (which is the real issue at hand).
    IVF is not going away, there are too many people who are in favor of it.
    So as long as we have IVF and these cells are being discarded, why in God's name should we not try to put these cells to good use to help others?
  5. #65  
    Cellmatrix, you have hit the nail on the head. With each step across "the line", comes the justification for the next step. That is why every planned step from now on needs intense scrutiny. AND prior steps should be re-evaluated.
  6. #66  
    IVF is not going away any time soon and in the meanwhile you would rather see the cells in the toilet rather than have them possibly be used to help someone. Sorry for being brutally honest, but thats how I see it.
  7. #67  
    I'm outraged that Clulup could be considered defender of the English language! That's my job! Besides, Tulip uses too many Americanisms, like so many Europeans do...

    To raise a point on IVF I don't think everyone is capable of adopting. Having a child in the womb and giving birth creates a wholly different level of emotional connection.
    Animo et Fide
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    I'm outraged that Clulup could be considered defender of the English language! That's my job! Besides, Tulip uses too many Americanisms, like so many Europeans do...
    I am just trying to do our American friends here a favor. Because when I write favour, what would they think?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    IVF is not going away any time soon and in the meanwhile you would rather see the cells in the toilet rather than have them possibly be used to help someone. Sorry for being brutally honest, but thats how I see it.
    If you ask me, brutal honesty is what is needed here. We need to be brutally honest that the IVF, for all of its good intent, is atrocious as it relates to the waste of human life (I know that debate is still open on this thread).

    I, for one, would rather not see the atrocity furthered by subjugating the cells/embryos/blasto-something-or-other to cloning--fully recognizing there is more good intention on the other side of embryo stem cell research.

    This is why such progressions are referred to as (to use another Americanism) "slippery slopes." Once you start taking such steps, they tend to accelerate. And, it becomes increasingly difficulty to put on the brakes and change directions.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions