Brownback disappointed in Frist endorsement of stem cell research

AP on Monterey Herald ^ | 7/29/05 | Sam Hananel - AP

[Mrs. Don-o]

We would probably disagree at what point 'real' life is created.

Compared to what? Video? CGI?

[Mrs. Don-o]

But if they aren't complaining about unused embryos being discarded, then what's the logical basis for complaining if they're being dissected and used for medical purposes?

But we DO object to the trashing of human embryos. I guess you didn't notice?

[Dog Gone]

Well, it's been pointed out to me on the thread, but I can't say that I've noticed it in columns or in newspaper accounts. I can't say that I've heard of protests outside fertility clinics like outside of abortion mills.

If there is an objection, it's been pretty subdued.

[Mrs. Don-o]

On the subject of the value of the human embryo: here's an analogy which shows a realistic way to assess value of a thing with known potential.

Say you bought a roll of high-resolution color film: $6 for a roll of 24 exposures. Unexposed, it's worth just that: $6. That's 25 cents per (potential) picture.

If your kids took the camera used the film to take silly pictures of Dad's nose hair, it's probably worth somewhat less than 25 cents per exposure.

If it was used to take the only extant pictures of your wedding, you might be willing to pay $200 - $500 or more (how rich are ya?) for the (still undeveloped) roll of film.

If it was used to take pictures of the secret location of the late Princes Diana's long-lost diamond and ruby tiara, it might be worth a couple hundred thousand dollars.

If it was used to take high-res pictures of the surface of the planet Neptune, the film --- still undeveloped --- might be worth millions, tens of millions of dollars.

The point is, the moment the film is exposed, it has the active potential, under the correct conditions, to develop; and its value is determined by the value of what it is inwardly designed to develop into.

The unexposed film correlates to the egg and the sperm, considered separately.

The exposed film correlates to the zygote created by the joining of sperm and egg. Its value is determined by what it is "imprinted" to develop into.

The big problem with this analogy is that it only refers to a picture which varies in value from 25 cents to a million dollars. But an embryo is far more than just a picture. If you "plant" a picture of Princess Diana's tiara, it doesn't grow into a tiara. If you "plant" a blueprint, it doesn't grow into a house. BUt if you "plant" an embryo correctly, it grows through a seamless continuum of what it already is.

Thus, if you're combining gerbil eggs and gerbil sperm, the resulting embryo is in the same "value" category as a gerbil.

If it's an embryonic California condor (say, in an unhatched egg) it's a safe bet that it's in a much higher value category. Make a public announcement that you're going to smash a couple of fertile, developing Condor eggs, and see what happens.

If its an embryonic human being, its value is commensurate with a human being.

Which is to say, it is beyond price.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

Grassboots.org- Please reread my post on this. I am 100% *on your side* about this. My *rhetorical question* was in response to someone who argued that we can't know for sure when a human life becomes a human person and that this is a religious issue.
It seems clear to me that human beings should be respected at all their stages of development, which means we SHOULD NOT KILL THEM. I could not agree more emphatically that defining "human being" and "personhood" separately is "culturally suicidal," as well as logically inconsistent, and that it is indeed ridiculous to require human beings to "audition" for "personhood."

[grassboots.org]

Grassboots.org- Please reread my post on this. I did and I apologize for misunderstanding. There is a missing notion in your post, however. What you probably assumed is that if people agreed with the first part - they would see the irony in your question. The problem is that most pro-aborts don't deny the humanity of the fetus/unborn child - they make a distinction between hmanity and personhood, It actually does require more for personhood than being a human - to them. I chatted with Tiller the Killer's minister once and asked him when life begins and about children with birth defects. He said the latter would be a "Good shot a humanity". Singer, the animal rights fella believes that adult dogs have more rights than newborn babies and that personhood doesn't begin until well past toddlerhood. If I had noticed your posting name I wouldn't have made the wrong assumption.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

I believe *life begins at fertilization* and that the *new human being* who is created when sperm meets ova *is a person*. Like many of you, I am impatient with those who wish to divide human beings and people into separate categories. This seems to me arbitrary and inhumane, and it smacks of the moral relativism I loathe and detest on the Left.

I posed the *rhetorical* "personhood" question in the hope that those posting on this thread who do not support protecting embryonic babies would see the problematic nature of their position. Most Freepers have as little patience with relativistic arguments as I do, so I was trying to appeal to that.

"I can't approve of the deliberate destruction of what I firmly believe is an innocent, living human being created by God in his own image, even in it's earliest stage of development."
I could not agree more sincerely or passionately.

To the poster who commented that pro-lifers never seem to protest outside IVF clinics: the group American Life League, which I previously mentioned, does send groups to protest these clinics. My friends and I pray every day for an end to destruction via IVF, ESCR, cloning, and abortifacient birth control.
If life begins at conception, and we oppose surgical abortion for that reason, we *must speak out* against the other ways in which *newly-conceived children* are killed.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

Thanks!

"The problem is that most pro-aborts don't deny the humanity of the fetus/unborn child"
- You're right, and I argue this differently when I am speaking to pro-aborts. The group I was trying to speak to was the one made up of people who, like Frist, oppose abortion but think IVF, destructive research, and abortifacients are ok, or even "pro-life." This doesn't quite make sense, and I made the points I made (not my best argument, I know), with the awareness that I was talking to Freepers, who I assume are a bit more logical than the average squishy moderate "undecided voter" type. :-) One trait that seems nearly universal on this forum is an impatience with relativistic arguments and Lib-style thinking. Arguing that a baby conceived in the womb must be allowed to live while dissecting in vitro babies for research is this kind of an argument.

[BillyBoy]

Overrated:

Frist Santorum Allen Brownback Rice

Think outside the box!

OWENS/COLEMAN 2008
PAWLENTY/TANCREDO 2008
RUMSFELD/BLACKWELL 2008
ROMNEY/STELLE 2008

[JohnnyZ]

OWENS/COLEMAN 2008
PAWLENTY/TANCREDO 2008
*** RUMSFELD/BLACKWELL 2008 ***
ROMNEY/STEELE 2008