Posted on 11/07/2006 8:02:24 AM PST by NYer
Well, I can see this devolving pretty quickly.
You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine just happens to be rooted in the Constitution.
I didn't. Similar to your request, please be factual when you reply to me.
I'll dissect your reply for you and that will have to be it. You aren't going to convince me you're right, and I'm not going to convince you you're wrong. That's what's great about America - we are all free to have our own opinions.
It is not a religious belief.
You're right - I said it was "opinion - a matter of philosophy, really." But if you're going to attempt to crawl out onto the branch that says people's opposition to embyonic stem cells is not rooted in their religious beliefs, then my advice to you is to watch out below. That's a very, very weak branch; not well attached to the tree called reality.
Religion deals with the supernatural. Human life is part of the natural world.
No arguments there.
It is an empirically provable scientific fact that a human embryo is a human being.
No, it is not. It is an empirically provable scientific fact that an embryo under the right conditions can grow into a human being. There is a huge difference between your statement and mine. Mine is correct.
Billions of people were at one time in their lives embryos.
Billions of people at one time were eggs and sperm. Shoot - all people were.
That embryo has the same DNA as it will have all along its development path.
Yes. So? The dead skin cells you've shed that are nestled between the keys of your keyboard have the same DNA as you too. Are they dead humans?
You have the same DNA that you had when you were an embryo immediately after you were conceived.
Yes. So?
What does it mean to be a human? I maintain my opinion that that is essentially a philosophical question.
"Mine just happens to be rooted in the Constitution."
You're partially right. However, you're missing why these ideas are enshrined and enumerated there, why the foundation for the Constitution is equally important, and why even a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution demands (albeit implicitly) we protect human life.
reply #96: "You're perfectly entitled to have a religious belief that says an embryo, an unfertilized egg, or an unrequited sperm cell is a human."
I never made any claim that a sperm or egg is a human being because they obviously are not. Your adding of them to your statement implying that I did is disingenuous.
I said it was "opinion - a matter of philosophy, really."
Um, no. Let's go back to reply #96, again. "You're perfectly entitled to have a religious belief"
People's opposition to embryonic stem cell research is rooted in biology and ethics. Ethics and morals are closely related to religion, but they are distinct from religion. So, one does not have to base their opposition to embryonic stem cell research on "religious beliefs."
Billions of people at one time were eggs and sperm.
No they weren't. Before the egg and the sperm met, the human being did not exist. Which is the point I have been trying to make. Human life begins at conception. Ask a biologist if you don't believe me.
Yes. So?
So, the DNA is the human blueprint for an individual human being. That human embryo has all the information that defines it as a unique human being.
Sigh.
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.