Report comment to moderator

but of course no one has even provided a valid answer suitable for discussing even a clone, and clones are clearly within sight. and of course if yo look carefully at a four cell collection of embryonic stem cells, one is struck by an intersting observation on these cells: it would seem a straightforward, although perhaps difficult task, to develop embryonic stem cells into a fetus (amusingly it is highly probable that this has already been done).

It is, however, fascinating that pro-lifers can define that whihc they argue is most valuable and which the argue so hard that they are trying to protect.

It would seem a reasonable assumption that they are reacting emotionally without truly understanding what it is they are trying to protect.

Report comment to moderator

I would say that since you are asking the question, you are already cutting the bread too thin.

At the same time, many people have already given a very adequate answer, which makes sense in a theistic, teleological world-view. Human life begins at conception. We may need science to tell us the precise moment when this happens, but even without science the philosophical definition remains valid to those who affirm the idea that God created each thing in reality to have a design and that living things have a beginning and mature to an ultimate “telos” — a point of final maturity.

I think you want to ask whether a clone is human?

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

excellent post, and you do indeed make the question quite clear:

1) you are not in favor of protecting human life

2) you are in favor of limiting the rights of the mother

I am asking a simple question which, given the speed of technology, will be with us shortly if it has not already occurred:

what is the clear definition of human which is valid no matter how the human came into existence.

The pro-life group appears to be hiding behind the flimsy hope that fertilization of an egg is the only way to make a fetus. We are already racing past this very limited model.

Report comment to moderator

You may find our timidity odd, but I find a lack of timidity scary. Your argument asks us to continually push the definition of the human being to such unworkable microscopic levels that we dare not enter without some trepidation. Especially considering the fact that we could not get our president to stop abortion at the third trimester, or to outlaw the partial birth abortion, otherwise known as yanking out a baby and crushing it’s skull.

As long as we are turning arguments around, let’s ask a pregnant mother, one who wants to keep her baby, where human life begins. What if her husband doesn’t want it? What definition would she use to convince her husband her child was human?

Those who advocate for abortion repeatedly defend a woman’s right to chose, without much nuance to their arguments. But the debate isn’t over a woman’s right to chose; it concerns the question of when she will be allowed to make her choice alone. If she is having a wart removed, it’s her choice alone. When she is killing her baby, the law should not allow her to have the sole choice.

I believe that when a mother wants to keep her baby, she will not argue that her fetus is mere body tissue. And since women don’t know they are pregnant until they miss a period, the baby has been living for four to six weeks by the time it becomes apparent that she has a decision to make.

By the time she is aware of it, the egg has implanted itself to the uterine wall and chemical reactions have stopped her menstrual cycle. Again, if the mother wants to keep her baby, will she argue that the embryo is not yet a fetus — not yet a baby? Will she allow anyone to terminate the pregnancy?

Let’s turn to the father and ask him. Do you want this baby? What will be his response? Will he ask you, “What baby? It’s merely tissue.” I don’t think so. He knows, just like the mother knows, that the thing will eventually drip out of the vagina as a baby.

Again, the REAL decision of the mother is not whether to have a wart removed but whether to carry a baby to term. You can talk Latin all day and never really get at the real question. Do you want this baby or not?

Those who advocate for pro-life seem to understand this. It’s never been a question of when a piece of tissue becomes a human being. It’s always been a question of what to do about the inevitable.

Report comment to moderator

and I am truly amazed at how difficult it appears to be for pro-life supported to be able to clearly define in an objectvie manner what they mean by human life.

Don’t you find it a bit odd that they have trouble defining the philosophical concept which seems to be at center to what appear to be some of their core beliefs?

Report comment to moderator

but of course in strongly supporting dedifferentiating research you are encouraging a process which would appear to inevitably bring this question to the fore.

Not dealing with the question does not make it go away.

So you can perhaps start dealing with it now, and while you are at it provide a sound philosophical foundation to the pro-life arguments, or science would appear to be rerady to nuyllify your philosophical foundation.

Its a pay me now or pay me latter problem: and the costs latter would appear to be very high.

Report comment to moderator

Ah, but that’s all Musing ever does, Peter. It’s pointless to try to debate with someone who is so obviously confused and confusing.

Report comment to moderator

but of course we can continue and it may save time.

When you look at twinning in in vitro fertilization and you compare the blastocysts from the twinning with embryonic stem cell beginnings, it would seem that there is no objective difference: we take the blastocyst to make the stem cells.

So I will of course next ask if embryonic stem cells are potential humans?

And then we look at dedifferentiating skin cells, and I will ask if these stem cells are therefore potential humans?

And you do see where this leads.

Of course, as you are demonstrating, those against stem embryonic stem cell research, by refusing to akcnowledge the difficulty in defining what is the quality of human, leave the questions posed by these new technologies totally unaswered.

And of course, I doubt that anyone, including the most ardent right to life proponents, will argue that a skin cell is a potential human.

But of course, then I run the argument in reverse.

Nope, at some poiont one needs to explicitly answer this question with an operationlly useful definition.

I am awaiting yours.

Report comment to moderator