As I've said on several occassions, I'd be very happy if I were wrong. However, as yet, I have not heard any arguments as to why my stance is incorrect. I'm not saying mine is correct - only that we must err on the side of assuming that the unborn are, indeed, persons when convincing evidence to the contrary is lacking. In absence of said evidence, logic must guide us.
Umm... when was the last time you checked the news. Last I heard, there are ESC trials ongoing for MS, Parkinson's, Diabetes, and compression necrosis. But hey, those aren't real-world applications, right?
Unfortunately for you, I have never once brought my (or any other) brand of morality into this debate. I've stuck to a strictly ethical basis for all arguments. As I have stated time and again, neither my morals nor anyone else's is a basis for legislation outside of a theocracy. The only belief that I've expressed in this debate is that logic should govern our actions. Do you disagree?
The complete lack of acknowledgement of ethical standards in your diatribe is genuinely frightening. You seem to believe that any treatment that can heal, regardless of the cost to humanity or other individuals. This smacks of the mindset of so many egotistical doctors who feel that their job is to play God in the hospital, taking and giving life as they see fit. The role of the physician is to preserve life, never to take it. Sounds like you need to revisit your Hippocratic Oath.
Whether a human life begins at conception is not even in question. If a zygote is not human, when would it become human? Of course, the answer is that it never would. You may argue whether it is a person, but to argue that it is not human is ignoring the biology completely. I recognize that this is most likely an error in your choice of diction, but it is very important in this debate to apply the correct terminology, as it is only the terminology that even allows your viewpoint to exist. Without this fabrication of verbage, my stance is de facto correct.
That's the main thrust of my argument. However, I see that you've got sidetracked by your distrust of science. I think that if you had the same experience as I, in terms of being among scientists who do medical research, you'd realize that such a thing as you describe is something of the past... at least when it comes to academic centers in the U.S.
And see? You just brought your faith into it. Unless I've misread what you've written, and that seems unlikely, you're implying that a fertilized egg or zygote is now a human accorded full rights and priveleges. It's certainly not true in a legal sense, and only in a religious context would that statement even begin to make sense.
While there are often pearls of wisdom in your posts, I fear that you've been to one-too-many self-help seminars. Antibiotics were never weaponized... and neither was the heart-lung machine. Not every discovery CAN be made into a weapon... and even if most can, it's certainly not the reason to stop pursuing them.
I believe that evil is so so often the product of good intentions, the good intentions of men who have not examined themselves and are unaware of their unconscious motivations. I believe that modesty or humility and self examination are far too rare yet vital for human survival.You couldn't be more wrong. Saying that ethical issues are a thing of the past is ignorant at best. They arise in falsifiying data (see the South Korean scandal that happened very recently), in the treatment of human and animal subjects, as well as in materials selection. Many institutions keep a full-time ethics committee that must approve the use of any human/animal tissue before the research may proceed (see: Declaration of Helsinki). A strict utilitarian viewpoint will not always lead to the correct conclusion in ethical debates. If it would, then I would be forced to agree with your stance. The bottom line is that the utilitarian method for determining what is right and wrong does not actually address right and wrong based on sound, logical principles. It tries to denigrate the issue into a simple mathematical formula, where the variables are defined through hand-waving and subjective measures.
You have yet to demonstrate that thinking, feeling, or experiencing are necessary parts of being a person. I merely contend that I do not know what constitutes a person. Whose position requires more faith?
My premise is that it is always wrong to consume life to improve life. For example, I'll assume that you are a person in a very real, legal sense. Therefore, it seems inappropriate for me to kill you, cut you up, and feed you to starving African children. From a utilitarian perspective, however, feeding the children might be a meritorious behavior. I will submit that if you willingly sacrificed yourself for the nourishment of the starving children, it may be meritorious. Similarly, if the zygote is a person, then I have no right to take its personhood away and sacrifice it on the altar of utilitarianism for the potential good of others.
So you've never read my previous posts on this subject? I've argued this stance very thoroughly without borrowing any theological arguments. I guess it's easier to assume that I arrived at my viewpoint because of religion, because then you can dismiss it out of hand without addressing any of its premises. :roll:
Last time I had this debate with you, you posted what you thought defined human life. You cited the AMA and other sources, which did not agree with your viewpoint. When I asked you how you viewed these things in light of this, you simply backed out of the discussion altogether. So, I'll give you another chance. Why isn't a zygote a person?
Facebook
Twitter