Stem Cells and Ethics

The pro-life lobby wields the argument that an embryo is a human being, and human beings belong to themselves. I doubt whether a human being would, if they could, decide to donate themselves wholesale to stem-cell research, while still alive.The crux of the matter is whether a clump of a dozen or so cells constitutes a human being, complete with all the human rights that come with that status. If so, then the pro-lifers have a point, but then I wonder what God, that pro-lifer par excellence, has in mind with all those spontaneous abortions that happen to occur all the time, and have done so throughout human history. Either this God is malevolent, or he considers an embryo not yet human after all.Since the pro-lifers usually tout religious motives, their own premise presents them with an existential conundrum.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Perhaps it's sophistry, but I think I could reason my way around your legal death clause: the law you cite states that there must be a cessation of the functions mentioned. The fact that these functions weren't there in the first place means that they cannot have ceased.If theft is defined as taking possession of something that belongs to someone else, without their consent, and I take possession of something without anyone's consent, but which doesn't belong to anyone either (for example, a breath of air), then it's not theft, is it?Therefore, the law doesn't apply, and the cells aren't legally dead. What do you make of that?Mind you, I am playing the advocate of the devil here. I'm all for stem-cell research, without any ethical reservations.Edited by Parasomnium, : added theft example

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

That's why pro-lifers will probably not object to doing stem cell research using rocks only.

We are not just any clump of cells. A large contingent of our cells forms a brain which is responsible for our having a personality. I'd say that constitutes a huge difference with an embryo of a few days old. In that case I never again want to hear a pious Christian pronouncing that it's all in God's hands, because apparently it isn't.Edited by Parasomnium, : fixed quote

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I have made it clear what I think is the big difference between the clump of cells that is is an early fetus and an adult human being. The very point is that the reasoning is not the same for an adult possessing a brain and therefore a personality. What I meant was that when an accident happens, I do not want to hear from so-called pious Christians that what happened was in God's hands because apparently God is not responsible for accidents. That's fair enough, but then the argument that everything is in God's hand no longer holds water.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Could you please point out where I concentrated on the genetic aspect of the matter? I have traced back our exchange and I can't find any mention of it in what I said. Maybe you are confused by the theme of the thread, where genetic ownership is discussed. I have made that my argument. If you remember, I said:

quote:

---

We are not just any clump of cells. A large contingent of our cells forms a brain which is responsible for our having a personality. I'd say that constitutes a huge difference with an embryo of a few days old.

---

I think it is very reasonable to make a distinction between a clump of a dozen undifferentiated cells, where no mental processes of any kind take place, and an adult human being who very clearly is a clump of cells with attitude, so to speak. So, yes, I do think that mental capacity is a part of the equation, I don't see why I shouldn't. After all, it's a rather conspicuous, if not dramatic difference, isn't it?(Re "It is in God's hands": if you don't mind let's not pursue this issue any further because it is off-topic.)

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.