Bush vetoes Stem Cell Research

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There is no biological difference between a body cell and a fertilised egg.
Not so fast. A human zygote could not develop without external help, so it's not happening on its own accord.
See, here's the sticking point. The pro-life camp likes to gloss over it.
Try again, shall we?

...Okay, I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm genuinely curious: are you trying to be a jackass, or what? Are you trolling, or do you not understand what I'm saying, or....gah!

I should think it would be quite obvious that there is a biological difference between a body cell and a fertilised egg. That is, in fact, what this whole damned stem cell debate is about; if there were no biological difference, stem cells from embryos would have no particular virtue and the debate would be nonexistent.

Also, I am not aware of any cases of normal body cells spontaneously transforming into fetuses. Please feel free to point out any studies in which somebody's right eyeball suddenly budded into a baby, but until that point I'll remain skeptical of your claim. If all that mattered was the environment of the uterus, human cloning would be the easiest thing on earth; all you'd have to do is stick a cell, any cell, in there during the right time of the month, and voila! instant baby. Women could become instantly pregnant from a guy getting to third base and sloughing off a few not-quite-dead skin cells in there.

BTW, you could not walk or talk without the oxygenated, properly pressurized, normal-gravity environment of the earth. Ergo, you do not live of your own accord.

Flip: I don't believe I've used a single religious argument in this thread. I think that all arguments other than plain genetic identity--the embryo/zygote/whatever having its own distinct set of DNA and thus forming a separate entity from either parent--is a matter of one's existential POV. The argument that humans are human by virtue of self-awareness or intelligence is dependent on our subscribing to the ideals of the Enlightenment, just as much as talking about souls is dependent on religious belief. Either way, you're imposing one group of people's opinion on the metaphysical meaning of our existence on the whole population, which may not share those views.

[Kuciwalker]

Please feel free to point out any studies in which somebody's right eyeball suddenly budded into a baby, but until that point I'll remain skeptical of your claim.

Well, I don't think it was from an eyeball, but you might want to read up on Athena's birth.

[Elok]

Grr. I'm familiar with classical mythology, Kuci. Don't do that to me; I thought you were pointing me towards some obscure but documented case in Greece involving spontaneous development of a zygote or something. I was getting excited to read it, only to find...

What a gyp.

[Kuciwalker]

*bows*

[Ben Kenobi]

And I find the whole 'potential' argument problematic. A sperm or an egg have the potential to be humans, yet they are destroyed all of the time even without our intention. In fact, it is impossible to go without destroying eggs or sperm. If there was a God, and he believed that anything with the potential to be human must be protected, wouldn't he create us so we wouldn't lose our sperm or eggs? And why would he create males so that only one sperm fertilizes the egg and the rest die? And you could take it back further and say the food we eat has to potential to be life to. I just think that saying something has the potential to live is a bad reason to protect it.

Let's be very clear here. You are distorting our argument. We are not saying that the embryo is a potential person, or has the potential to become a person; rather that the embryo has everything she needs to be a person and has the potential to grow and develop as a person.

I have said that the embryo, and follow carefully here has the intrinsic capacity to grow and develop as a person, something that all human persons have, and something that embryos that are not human do not have and something that human cells do not have on their own.

Both words are important. Intrinsic means that this capacity is within the embryo, which is obvious because given shelter and food just like we need, the embryo will grow and develop just like we do.

Capacity is like a bucket. Sure the embryo does not have as much stuff in the way of development that you and I have, but they still have the bucket. This is what makes them a person, not the level of stuff in the bucket.

The difference between sperm and egg is that we do not see this spontaneous development until after fertilisation when they cease to exist as distinct cells. Only in their union do they produce a zygote which has all these characteristics that the sperm and egg do not individually possess.

There is a difference between an embryo, fetus, and infant. An infants body operates on it own and survives on its own (obviously it needs food and water like all living beings, but it physically survives on its own, it doesn't need biological help).

And the same is true of the embryo who gets shelter and food from her mom. There is no difference, both are dependent.

As Elok put it, if your dependency made you a person, then the fact that we have air to breathe makes us very dependent upon our current environment, just as the embryo is dependent upon the amniotic sac.

This is why it should be considered a life and should be protected. However, the fetus and embryo are different. The embryo is not worth protecting for reasons stated above, and it is just a collection of a few cells. It has human DNA, but it isn't even recognizably human. It has none of the human characteristics or traits.

Everyone must be an embryo before they become and infant. Do you deny this? By your standard, we are all just larger clumps of cells.

As for being recognisably human, that depends on what you regard as looking human. An embryo is perfectly human, since this is what humans look like at this stage of development. An infant does not look like an adolescent, yet we would not say that it is the fault of the infant for looking so different.

I think the fetus part gets problematic. I am pro-choice for legal reasons, ie I think the pro-choice policy is more beneficial to our country. But from a moral standpoint, I am not sure. It depends on when you say life starts, and I don't know where I'd draw that line. At first I'd say an infant, because it survives on its own. However, what about an 8 month old fetus? I wouldn't feel comfortable with that getting aborted, because it is fairly well developed and can even feel sensation. But then is that a good criterion for determining whether something is a life and should be protected or not? I don't really know how I'd go about making such a moral decision, especially when I am unsure of my metaphysical beliefs.

Why draw a line at all?

At 5 months, you have very little in developmental difference from 8 months.

But when it comes down to it, there is a major flaw with the religious right's position. Their whole position is based on the principle that when the sperm and the egg meet, a soul naturally becomes attached to this cell and stays with this entity until death. This then means that this entity must be protected.

And this belief is founded on religious principles that not everyone shares. You can't force a nation to follow your own metaphysical beliefs.

The only one who has brought religion into this thread are the atheists. I think you need to check your religion at the door since religion has no place in this debate.