It isn't a fetus... it's a dog.. or something
- Thread starter obtuseobserver
- Start date
Essentially our disagreement boils down to this- at what point does that cluster of cells become developed enough to make it morally wrong to kill it? You say as soon as the zygote is formed, I would argue perhaps later- maybe up until when it is at the fetal stage.
A consideration in this that needs to be made though is what happens when we figure out a way to take part of an adult or child human and use it to make another human? At this point, would you argue that those cluster of cells are also now sacred because they could become a human life? And what about the case in which a woman's uterus cannot house a growing embryo and despite the embryo being created, it dies only because of the poor environment? How about when you consider that that same embryo would have been fine in a healthy woman's body? All three of these scenarios may very well consider the same group/type of cells, but it is just the environment that differs (the adult's might be induced pluripotent stem cells). So is it the environment of the healthy mother's body that you believe makes that group of cells special not any physical trait or anything about the embryonic cells themselves?
p.s. you get my point- I am not asking all of those questions literally, but rhetorically- it is really just the last one that I am wondering what you think about.
A consideration in this that needs to be made though is what happens when we figure out a way to take part of an adult or child human and use it to make another human? At this point, would you argue that those cluster of cells are also now sacred because they could become a human life? And what about the case in which a woman's uterus cannot house a growing embryo and despite the embryo being created, it dies only because of the poor environment? How about when you consider that that same embryo would have been fine in a healthy woman's body? All three of these scenarios may very well consider the same group/type of cells, but it is just the environment that differs (the adult's might be induced pluripotent stem cells). So is it the environment of the healthy mother's body that you believe makes that group of cells special not any physical trait or anything about the embryonic cells themselves?
p.s. you get my point- I am not asking all of those questions literally, but rhetorically- it is really just the last one that I am wondering what you think about.
The point is in questioning whether there is a point where it is considered human. And even pro-life people draw that line somewhere- I doubt anyone thinks sperm and eggs have a right to life.
You mean someone who killed an actual born child? I am positive that the majority of pro-choicers do not feel that way- that is just a minority example. In the same way, I am sure there are pro-lifers that are fine with killing innocent people too and there have most definitely been pro-life murderers. That doesn't mean everyone is like that.
You might want to reread my post before going all McCarthyist on me.
you said: it should be made mandatory for umbilical cords to be placed in storage as they're chalk full of embryonic stem cells
Umbilical cords do not contain embryonic stem cells.
You have your facts wrong. The stem cells in umbilical cords have limited ability to develop into other cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and can develop into any type of cell.
I din't go McCarthyist I went annoyed that you have not been able to distinguish between adult stem cells & embryonic sem cells; multipotentency and pluripotentency. These are vital distinctions you must understand to have an opinion worth having.
Sorta. A toddler will usually develop into a teen. I assume that's too far to morally kill. The relatively less developed stage of the toddlers life (at the embryo stage) makes it no less alive and no less human.
The value we place on those cells is a matter of opinion. If you think the embryo is less valuable I'd ask, why?
Why?
Are you asking how we should view, morally, cells taken from an adult host that can be cultivated into a complete genetically identical human?
That's a different discussion. However, as noted before, if we're doing it for spare parts it is unethical. If we are doing it to make a clone army, football team etc it is unethical. Intent matters.
The uterus is not a lab where the embryo's cells are removed for testing. That embryo was a living human that died before implantation. This happens all the time and even those poor environments sometimes result in successful implantation. These are quite different factually and morally.
This is not on topic. We do not require every embryo to successfully implant and be born. NATURAL processes dictate this will not happen. However, embryonic stem cell research kills embryos through complete NON-NATURAL processes. They are very different factually and morally.
No. I am saying an embryo is living and human. You are asking about whether it will survive. Sometimes it MAY NOT survive in the uterus. If subject to stem cell research it WILL NOT. There is a big difference between letting nature take its course and prohibitting nature from taking its course.
(your first hypo did not involve an embryo - it is an interesting question though and I've read some interesting arguments about it. None of which, of course, I currently recall)
I think I addressed it? If not hit me again from another angle.
What a surprise, you focus on the part I didn't answer (because you were right in case you're wondering) and ignored the part I did. What, you think people only read your posts or something and won't notice?
Again
my only point with regard to your post
Umbilical cords offer no embryonic stem cells
as far as the state collecting these cells.... check out the fight in MN over the issue