Posted on 06/18/2003 3:25:36 PM PDT by MHGinTN
So I guess dogs, cats, birds, fish are all human because they breathe on their own.
You're not the brightest one, are you Einstein?
Like a Just So story.
The incredible irrational thought you display -- it's like you are an automaton.
Interesting. I remember years ago hearing the pro-Abortionists saying this sort of stuff - pretty much word for word.
I guess the Planned parenthood talking points are still the same.
Go underwater and sustain your life with your own organs.
Or in to a room with no oxygen.
Can't do it? Hm, you must not be human.
You wrote, "I concede that a fertilized cell outside the body could be termed a life, a human embryo." That you have chosen to place the truth in doubt
(with the qualifier 'could') shows a desire to fashion reality to what you want it to be rather than what it is. If the gametes are human the embryo is a human embryo. That is uncontrovertable scientific fact.
Your interpretation of the 'could' issue is one way of looking at it. What I was attempting to say was that I wasn't going to disagree with the person I was talking to and I would concede that they 'could' be right. If you wish to change that to 'incontrovertibly right', I can live with it. It wouldn't change my final premise.
It is also a fact that while still in a petri dish, the embryo is building its placental barrier for survival. The placenta is the first organ for survival that the newly conceived individual builds and it is cast off at birth. The woman builds none of the organs of the individual within her body. That someday embryos will not even be placed in a human body from conception to 40 weeks gestational age argues for a better perspective on what it means to be an alive integrated whole human organism, a human being.
If you wish to discuss a forty week old gestational age fetus outside the womb, that's an issue for another time. I would disagree with that too. I'm not going to morph this issue into a second one. I have addressed the issue of initial human cells. That's what I'll continue to discuss.
"I see this as competing concerns." [The 'competing concerns' arise from purposed action by older alive individuals that place the younger individual human lives in jeopardy. It is tantamount to a murderer placing a loaded .45 in a toddler's hands, then shooting the toddler as a threat to the murderer's life and being acquitted of charges even though the toddler has no notion of how to chamber a round from the clip and there is none in the chamber. Purposely causing the endangerment is hardly as neutral a situation as you have tried to mischaracterize it, albeit innocently.]
I don't agree that manipulating early human cells carries the same weight as shooting an infant. If you wish to say both are wrong, that's another arguement.
"On the one hand we have the faintest spark of life." [Actually, the first cell is the most potent cell of your entire life, having the capacity to differentiate into the trillions of cells you now possess, so it is hardly the 'faintest spark'.] "On the other hand we have living humans who are incapacitated for a decade or more from Parkinsons and other diseases." [Congratulations, by parsing truth to 'insignificant enough', diluting clear facts to fit your world-view, you've arrived at rationalizing cannibalism.
First you equated my thoughts as supporting the shooting of an infant. Now I'm supposedly on the level of a cannibal. I don't think either of these arguements is particularly flattering or supportive of your position.
And that's the deepest problem with starting your mental journey by denegrating clear truth upon which further truths are founded.
Since we have been in agreement regarding human cells outside the body, I'm not sure what denegration of truth you are refering to. I realize that wasn't readily appearant to you when you made your comments.
The apologists for our American abortion holocaust do it every day; the researchers wanting to kill and exploit embryos for their stem cells do it too; the people wanting America to embrace cloning individual human embryonic beings so their stem cells (and other parts of a fetal nature, when the evil is accpeted sufficiently to slide harvesting from cloned fetuses onto your plate) may be exploited also.
Here you attempt to equate me with appologists for the abortion holocaust. Since we both disagree with abortion, and I have stated so in no uncertain terms, that isn't sustainable. Then you use the term "...slide harvesting from cloned fetuses onto your plate".
Look, you can use terms like "shooting an infant", "cannibal", "abortion holocaust" and "...slide harvesting from cloned fetuses onto your plate" if you like, but the casual reader is going to take note of these and your arguement is going to look weaker for the inclusion of them. Stick to the facts.
"In my heart of hearts, in a perfect world, I don't think God would want us to fertilize and manipulate human cells outside a mother (host). My friend,
this is no perfect world." So, you would acknowledge you are about to endorse what is against God's plan, then you slap the old boy in the face and assert your right to be in rebellion to that recognized plan because those around you are in rebellion already. Well, you're in large company ... that's the state of most every human being who is in rebellion to God's still small voice. Why not try instead to find a way to accomplish the goals without purposely making the world imperfect in the fashion you know to be wrong? You wouldn't be making the world perfect, you would just be avoiding helping to make it more imperfect. Think about it, you've tried to authorize rebellion against what God's Spirit tells you, simply because you've recognized the utilitarian value of the wrong actions in satisfying your selfish motivations.
Your categorizations and inflamatory terms don't do you a lick of good. You boil this down to 'your selfish motivations' (meaning me of course), but fail to realize I'm not the person whose benefit I am seeking this for. You caste this as "open rebellion against God's plan" (paraphrasing), and seek to state that I am manipulating this issue for personal gain. I don't work in the cloning field and don't have a single relative who is suffering from Parkinsins. As for an open rebellion against God, I am not convinced God would disapprove of the manipulation of early human cells in order to rescue adult human beings.
You equate the first cells of human life to carry equal weight with a 50 year old fuctioning human being. Then you must also think that some of those cells will go to hell (figuratively), and others will make it to heaven, even if they don't progress beyond the age of 24 hours. After all, both these cells and adult humans carry equal weight. Could you tell me the rationalle for the cells that would wind up in hell?
In the absense of that rationalle, I am going to advance the premise that I don't not hold human embryos in the same light as adult functioning humans. The same arguement could be used for fetuses inside the mother's body. I have agreed that I think the termination of those is wrong. The only reason I think we should consider the manipulation of human cells outside the body is for the betterment of mankind.
I am trying to weigh competing concerns and made that crystal clear. Your attempts to meld that into some vile conspiracy against God's plan are flawed IMO.
As for us trying to pursue other methods to cure disease, I don't think there's any disagreement. I support that also.
"Where we disagree is the manipulation of fertilized and splitting cells outside the human body." Those dividing cells outside the human host are doing exactly what is required for the organismal individual human being to survive in its environment. The embryo is alive (cell division), the embryo is building its means to survive (the placental encapsulation) and the embryo as a member of the human species and alive is a human being, albeit no bigger than the period at the end of the last sentence!
I believe we have covered this ground extensively.
By dehumanizing the individual human beings you deem of utilitarian value because their body parts may be taken and used to perhaps cure older individual human beings, you dehumanize the species and the members of the species ... with 'cannibalization of mere commodities'.
I realize that this is your position. I think it is one viable position that could be argued. I think there is a strong rationalle behind it, but I am not convinced it is the complete body of understanding on the subject.
Please, read the essay linked in post #1 from which the excerpts are posted in the thread start.
Thank you. And thank you for stating your case.
149 posted on 06/19/2003 8:57 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
Your discomfort should tell you something about your position.
Well I've tried to be honest about my thoughts on this. I would suspect you experience a bit of discomfort thinking that a possible cure for Parkinsins would not be forthcoming, when it might. This doesn't mean you are wrong for your decision, it only means there are concerns (certain amounts of discomfort) for both sides.
I'm not talking perfect or souls or ideals, but reality and facts about taxonomy, purposeful actions and the consequences of those actions.
And I would say that I am contemplating certain inactions and the consequences that they might carry.
If you manipulate human DNA to create living tissue that is desirable because that tissue is human, developing in a human way and living, there shouldn't be any doubt about what you're doing and causing to be. If the embryo can be implanted in a woman's uterus (the big bugaboo that seems to frighten the AMA and Senator Hatch) and grow as any naturally occuring embryo, any doubt is more artificial than the "creation" of the embryo itself.
If enriched cells could be derived without the human embryo progressing too far along the road to maturity, I would support it. But I would only support this if it could be accomplished during the first four or five days of progression, most certainly less than a week.
I have explained on what moral grounds I would support this. And yes I do think it is a moral decison.
If anything, purposeful creation of a vulnerable human life outside the body carries added responsibility if you do believe that no one should be allowed to harm other humans that are not a danger to them. The technology necessary is very sophistocated and there is no room for doubt as to the fact that the actions are intentional. The duty of anyone who acts in this way is to protect and nourish the human until he can take care of himself or until someone else is willing to take responsibility. In the tradition of common law, where the person who dug the hole is responsible for anyone who fell into the hole, the new life may be due extra compensation for being placed in harms way (college education and the financing of a fancy wedding, perhaps).
Thank you for your comments. I don't believe we disagree on everything you've said by any means. I do however realize our conclusions are different.
You may wish to read my last post before this one.
150 posted on 06/19/2003 9:04 AM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
You have made me laugh.
At you, not with you.
I see you really don't put any intellectual stock in to your own arguments.
Your logic says bacteria or yeast or a host of many other organless creatures are not organisms.
Can you figure out your faulty logic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.