Jane Lake Makes a Mistake

Interesting post. I hadn't heard of the stem cell injections yet, and that was a frightening awakening. The exploitations that you speak of seem to be the new survival of the fittest, as most (in first world countries, at least) no longer have to fight for physical well-being. Instead, we're seeking some other sort of battle, whether it be materialistic or emotional, where society is in search of fulfilling these visualizations of granduer and opulence. Morals take second seat to the adrenaline rush fast food, fast cars, and zero responsibility. Why just have your cake when you can eat it, too? The sad part is, like you noted, that all this is done in the name of liberty and personal freedoms now.

So I guess I pose the eternal question: How do you impose responsibility on people without removing their freedom (or appearance thereof)?

Simply you cannot impose responsibility, only hope for it

Pat

As a mother I'm pro life, as a women I'm pro choice. I also have Lupus and I would benefit greatly from Stem Cell reaserch, but we have an asshole for a president and it's not going to happen during his term.

Those stem cells came from fetus that were going to go into garbage cans, why not let them do some good if they can? From death there is life.

This is really my comment, note the picture.

Jetpass:

You can't be both prolife and prochoice. All mother's are women, but not all women are mothers. Go with your motherly instinct.

I'm sorry about your Lupus but keep in mind that stem cell research is experimental and a theory. There is absolutely no indication that it will ever lead to a cure for anything.

The fact that the embryos were going to be thrown away is a perfect example of my slippery slope theory. They were created with the intent for infertile couple to have children, not kill them. There should have been laws in place to prevent "extra" embryos from being created in the first place!

Yes I can be both...LOL. I don't want to ever be put in the position that my body would be controlled by someone else. A lot of those babies are not going to go to infertile parents, they're going to be raised, poor, unloved, dirty, hungry, sex slaves etc.

I volunteer with children in the foster care system, it's full of children that no one wants to adopt. It's full of children whose parents kept them for welfare checks, religious beliefs, whatever it was these children were NOT wanted or loved and now their faces fill the court room, the streets, the cemetaries. Good god the damage to them at the hands of their parents last well into and sometimes beyond adulthood. Was it really better to have those sweet innoncent babes endure those bastards? NO!

Death is inevitable, the abortions are going to happen PERIOD, why not make lemons out of lemonade. Why not find a cure so my son doesn't have to see his mother in pain, or the ones who have it worse than me who die. If there's a way to make something good out of this, it's better than complaining and not using the resources that are available.

The greater good, will benefit from it.

Does a human embryo have the same moral status as an infant, child, or adult? This is the question truly being debated when we discuss stem cell research. The easy answer is that since an embryo is human it should all have an equal moral status as a person in any other stage of development. But, does being human really give something moral status? The answer is no! Were this the case, every cell in my body would have an equal right to life. The adjective “human” merely describes anything genetically belonging to the species Homo sapiens which includes each individual cell, tissue, and organ of a person’s body. Since the human body systematically kills old cells to maintain its health, it would be guilty of trillions of counts of homicide in the name of the greater good!

If simply being human does not insinuate moral status, what is it that makes humanity sacrosanct? Reworded, what transforms a human organism into a human being with personhood and all the associated inalienable rights and privileges? How you answer this question depends greatly on your personal worldview. Based upon my worldview, I argue that there are two conditions that give human beings their special moral status.

The first, drawn from the material world, is sentience. Sentience implies the ability to feel pain or loss and is what makes an organism aware that it is in fact alive. Self-awareness transforms a randomly living mass of human cells into a being that knows it is alive and wants to continue being so. It allows a person to interact purposefully with his environment and form relationships with others. This trait is by no means unique in the animal kingdom, being exhibited by all higher order species. As such, sentience alone does not make a human being special.

My second condition, derived from my religious background, is ensoulment. I believe each human being is endowed with a soul that allows him to experience a spiritual relationship with the Divine. It is this unique relationship that makes all human beings sacrosanct.
Now here is the intriguing twist. I do not believe that a human embryo has either of these qualities. Sentience cannot occur without brain activity. Embryonic brain activity does not occur until the 7th week after fertilization and the brain is not likely to be advanced enough for sentience until the fetal stage. Many argue that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception. The problem here is that there is no real moment of conception. Like all things biological, conception is a gradual process which continues straight into embryonic development. Assuming ensoulment did occur during conception, several more problems arise. Until the 14th day after conception an embryo is capable of twinning. In such a circumstance would the soul also split, or is a new one suddenly created? An embryo can also fuse with another genetically unique embryo forming one new embryo with a dual genetic composition. Did their souls fuse too, or are there two souls trapped in one body? Furthermore, nearly 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted by their mothers. This would imply that billions of souls never got a chance to experience life. I believe that the human “soul” develops gradually in parallel to human biological development.

I therefore see no crime in the production and subsequent destruction of human embryos for research purposes. It seems especially important given the great potential stem cell research offers for developing treatments for genetic disorders. Sure, there have been no developments yet, but science takes patience and funding to produce results. IVF embryos, though they are human, are not and have no potential of becoming sentient human beings because they will never be implanted into a woman’s uterus. Whether used for research or not the ultimate fate of IVF embryos is destruction. Why not let these embryos contribute to society?


Josh