Replies

"I see no reason to draw any bright line distinction between humans and other animals. Any such distinction is based solely on specific religious beliefs, which have no place forming the basis of law in this country."

Wasn't it you who said this in an earlier post: "Embryos do not have the capacity for awareness or sensation, and are thus very different from late-stage fetuses or already born children. The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of us. It also matters to a creature which is experiencing pain."

If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that there is a difference between human embryos and "born children" -- a difference quite apparent to you and a difference which, I take it, you wold want to see 'enshrined in law'.

But when it comes to any difference between born children aand animals - your position is, I take it, that there is none.

"I'm not willing to give full legal rights to a human blastocyst anymore than I'm willing to give full legal rights to a gnat."

Huh?

What's this talk about "full legal rights"? Who, other than you, is talking about "full legal rights" for human blastcysts?

And, as an aside, do you see no difference between a human blastocyst and a gnat, or are they both worthy of the same dignity as far as you are concerned?

Finally, "Delegating to parents strikes me as the best answer.". Would you include delegating to parents the right to sell their children to people who will sacrfice them in order to conduct medical research?

I didn't say there is no difference between children and animals. I'm saying all these differences are a matter of degree and type, and that we should be considering a wide range of factors when deciding what rules apply to each.

Would you include delegating to parents the right to sell their children to people who will sacrfice them in order to conduct medical research?

Nope. Not already-born children, with functioning brains. For one thing, there'd be no point to it. I would, however, give parents the right to consent to medical research on their own children (which would presumably be carried out within the ethical guidelines of any other sort of medical research), and prohibit the children from later suing the researchers (i.e. make the parent's liability waiver fully and permanently valid). There is a serious problem in this area, which has prevented a lot of routine research on the effects of various treatments on children and fetuses and women of child-bearing age. Many medications are tested only on men and/or women of non-child-bearing age, and then put on the market as "safe", and later discovered to do serious harm to women and fetuses. More people get harmed this way, than would get harmed by starting out with some small controlled studies on these groups. More harm is bad. Less harm is good.