Posted on 11/07/2006 8:02:24 AM PST by NYer
Thank you for hoisting your strawman.
Have you contemplated about what you've written in light of the first amendment to the Constitution?
Oh now you're simply being ridiculous.
Surplus embyros are an outcome of IVF. The surplus embryos are discarded. Are you happy that they are discarded with no benefit to humankind?
The choice is plain. You either prefer that unwanted embryos go into the garbage or you prefer that they be put to use to benefit humankind.
That is the choice.
Fantasies about all embryos being used are just that. Fantasies.
I prefer to live in reality.
You may disagree with known science if you wish.......
Are you happy that human beings are created just to be destroyed? Do you not see the ghoulishness of that? How about if it was determined that your body would be put to better use "to benefit humankind" and you have no say in the matter? That is essentially what you are advocating.
Of course not, but thanks for the red herring.
The embryos are frozen rock solid and are going to be destroyed anyway. They will not be implanted. They will not grow into children. They are going to be destroyed.
Using those embryos for medical research is in no way similar to murdering a human being. You're attempting to draw a false parallel.
That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Millions of other Americans have a differing opinion - that a fertilized embryo, frozen with liquid nitrogen, is not a human being.
So - to answer your questions:
Are you happy that human beings are created just to be destroyed?
That isn't happening because frozen embryos are not human beings.
Do you not see the ghoulishness of that?
No - because despite your claim it is not happening.
How about if it was determined that your body would be put to better use "to benefit humankind" and you have no say in the matter?
Red herring. Please show me proof that scientists are harvesting living human beings for medical research without their consent. They're not.
I'm no fan of IVF. I see it as narcissism and selfishness. I can't understand why remaining childless or adopting is not acceptable; but here again, that's my opinion. Apparently hundreds of thousands if not millions of prospective parents have a different opinion.
The fact that they are frozen does not mean they are dead. They have the property of suspended animation. If they were dead, they would obviously be useless as experimental subjects.
"They will not be implanted. They will not grow into children. They are going to be destroyed."
Well (sigh), if somebody decides to destroy them, they'll be destroyed; if somebody decides to exploit them as unconsenting human experimental subjects, they'll be exploited; if somebody decides to adopt them, they'll be adopted; and if not, not. (A tautology, but there it is.)
The whole point being, what, if any, is the morally unobjectionable choice?
They should not have been intentionally begotten into such an extreme high-risk situation (which is one reason why IVF is so wrong) but as long as they're alive they ought to be available for implantation; a whole lot more could be done to recruit parents for them.
"Using those embryos for medical research is in no way similar to murdering a human being. You're attempting to draw a false parallel."
You're right: it's not similar to murdering a human being. It is precisely murdering a human being.
From the beginning of your life, you have never been any kind of "being" other than human. You've never been canine, porcine, avian or crustacean. You have changed size, shape, and function quite a bit since Day One; but none of this has altered what you are: a member of the human family.
All "developing" things have a value commensurate with what they are. If fertile bald eagle eggs are destroyed, you're losing eagles. If a pregnant whale is beached, you're losing two whales. If a late Spring frost comes and destroys all the newly-fertilized peach blossoms, the orchardist doesn't say "No big deal." He says "Damn! I lost a million-dollar peach crop."
Which illustrates the fact that a developing entity has the nature and value of that entity.
Humanly speaking, we all have an interest in this; and as far as the state goes, the state has a reasonable secular interest in "human futures" just as it has an interest in bald eagle embryos or peach crops or "commodity futures." The whole cohort of embryonic human beings constitutes our next generation. Their value pertains to their dignity as human (valuable-to-themselves)and not merely their commodity-value as "things" (valuable to somebody else.)
The bottom line is, each of us has his own life to live; and human rights begin where human life begins.
You're still missing the point.
The fact is that Judeo-Christian teachings (like this one) are the source of American law--it is what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sit on.
Think of the Constitution and the BoR as a house. Judeo-Christian teaching is necessarily the foundation. Without this foundation, there is no force behind it. This is one of the primary reasons why these principles have remained in full force for over 225 years
Considering that every single principle outlined in the Constitution AND the BoR has its roots firmly implanted in the teachings of the patriarchs, the prophets, and Christ.
Ignoring it and calling it a strawman doesn't help either...
I beg to differ. An embryo IS a human being.It is an absolute complete human being.
It is not an opinion. It is a scientific fact that an embryo is a human being. You were at one time an embryo. What are you now? a cat? a dolphin? a tree? No, you are a human being, you will continue to be a human being and you were a human being as soon as you were conceived.
Just because conception takes place outside of the body with IVF does not mean that the embryos are not human beings. Your need to rationalize otherwise is something you might want to consider. Why don't you want to think of those embryos as human beings?
Please show me proof that scientists are harvesting living human beings for medical research without their consent.
Embryonic stem cell research.
No complaints here. What were we talking about?
That is a loaded question. Are you happy that the bodies of some victims in the Nazi concentrations camps were discarded without being used by the Nazi's for scientific research? Of course we want "benefits to humankind"; but we don't want to violate the sanctity of human life to do so. If we violate the sanctity of human life for the sake of health benefits, we have traded in a great benefit for the sake of a much lesser benefit. We will have gained health, but lost our souls.
The choice is plain. You either prefer that unwanted embryos go into the garbage or you prefer that they be put to use to benefit humankind.
That is a false dilemma. There are other options, such as, that infertile couples would rescue these embryos, or that they be given a proper burial, or that IVF not be allowed in the first place.
-A8
Do you not believe that human embryos are human beings?
-A8
It is not a "fact" that an embryo is a human being. It is an opinion - a matter of philosophy, really - not science. Claiming a fertilized, frozen embryo sitting in a glass container under liquid nitrogen in a storage vault is a human is ludicrous. Simply because "if" this happened and "if" that happened, along with a number of other "ifs" that embryo could grow into a human being is irrelevant.
Identical logic could be applied to claiming that semen is a human being - there's only one more "if" required.
Sorry - but from a scientific perspective you're neither making sense nor being convincing. You're perfectly entitled to have a religious belief that says an embryo, an unfertilized egg, or an unrequited sperm cell is a human. That's fine. But religious beliefs and/or opinions that aren't factual are a poor basis for public policy. I can't support that.
Your referral to Nazi concentration camps was false, inflammatory, and not worthy of a response.
You've lost credibility to say anything else to me.
Absolutely.
Are they the source?
No. An emphatic no.
As a pre-law and history student, I can say emphatically that it is. And it is historical fact, btw. It is well known the Founding Fathers were God-fearing men.
The thing is that our society no longer acknowledges it out of fears of being "politically incorrect."
The principles of freedom of religion and justice for all (e.g. speedy and impartial jury) stem from the Judeo-Christian virtues of tolerance and respect for neighbor, not to mention the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes.
Realize that at the time the Constitution was written (circa 1787), most of these Judeo-Christian teachings were a fundamental and unquestioned part of society--IOW, it was somthing that didn't have to be stated.
It is not a religious belief. Religion deals with the supernatural. Human life is part of the natural world. It is an empirically provable scientific fact that a human embryo is a human being. Billions of people were at one time in their lives embryos. That embryo has the same DNA as it will have all along its development path. You have the same DNA that you had when you were an embryo immediately after you were conceived.
Nice try, but I never said that a sperm or an egg are human beings because they are not. Please refer to what I actually say when you reply to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.