I agree that this is not ideal. But I agree in the sense that a vegetarian thinks cattle ranching is not ideal. A quote from the article;" Even if stem cell treatments ultimately prove successful, embryonic stem cell treatment involves the deliberate killing of a human being in order to use his body parts to treat another human being." This statement is implicit of a sensationalist writer. To the uninformed reader, it paints a picture of tiny, dismembered babies being cut and pasted onto another human. This is clearly not the case! In my opinion, an embryo is no more a human being than dead skin or cut hair. I would say that life begins when the heart begins to beat, when the brain begins forming synapses, when the fingertips begin to feel and the lungs inflate with breath. To anthropomorphize an unfeeling mass of cells in order to garner sympathy and agreement is not a fair or true tactic. It would be best to impartially inform the masses of both sides as clearly and honestly as possible, as opposed to misdirecting them. Maybe then we would have more people crying for a stop to such debates, so that scientific progress can continue unabated.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/ethics/whystem.htm
I completely agree with you on this one. There is seldom an easy answer in ethical questions. The flip side of this is: if we have the potential to cure a real live person ill with a disease like MS or ALS should we not cure them? That person is a REAL human, not just the POTENTIAL of a human. Isn’t that a worse moral decision than “killing” an embryo?
ReplyDeleteI couldn't have said it better myself. I think prioritizing the pros and cons is our best bet for finding an agreeable solution. Existing human life is more important than the mere possibility of it, I think any reasonable person could agree.
ReplyDeleteI must say that I agree with the premise of your article. But I do want to point out one thing. You equate embryos with "dead skin or cut hair," but I would like to point out a fundamental difference between embryos and dead skin. An embryo is a cluster of fully functional, and therefore living cells; while dead skin is simply a cluster of proteins and nucleotides that used to be alive. I think it's important to understand that there is a key difference here. In effect, the question of "does life begin at birth?" should really be worded as "At what point should a cluster of cells be considered human enough to deserve human rights?"
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification, thats more or less what i was going for. Essentially i dont believe that any grouping of cells, alive or otherwise, is deserving of the rights afforded a fully grown human being.
Delete