A few new examples that some people just don't understand the meaning of "pro-life":
Yesterday, my State Representative refused to introduce me on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives because I was an "instrumental" "idealogue" for giving presentations about her support of a clone-and-kill bill for her opponent during the primary campaign. Then she talked to the Austin American Statesman reporter to tell him why, and he called me. I did get to explain that in politics, we always have to choose between the candidates and that "I'm all for stem cell research, I just wouldn't kill anyone for it." We were a blog item.
Then today I got a comment on a post from April 14th about the Texas Cord Blood Bank. The comment reminds me that I shouldn't "close the possibility" of using embryonic stem cells. As I pointed out in that post (and this one), we can't consider the creation and destruction of embryonic humans for the purpose of research or for therapy of another human. We can't "kill anyone for it."
Each and everyone of us was an embryo at one time. If we had been killed or harvested at that time, we wouldn't be, now.
That's the point that Michael Gazzaniga doesn't seem to get, any more than he did in the past. He spoke to York (Pennsylvania) College students earlier this month, saying,
During his talk, he presented different arguments people have used to debate the issue, one being that doing the research endangers a potential life.
"Everybody in this room values human life," Gazzaniga told the students. "Look around you. Look at your loved ones. Do you see a hunk of cells or do you see something else?"
A group of cells in a petri dish have no brain, no memories, he said. But some people against the research believe the cells are equal to an adult because they have the potential to turn into a life, given the right circumstances, such as being placed in a woman.
Gazzaniga used an analogy.
Think of The Home Depot, Gazzaniga said. Perhaps, in one Home Depot there are enough tools and people to build 30 houses. If Home Depot burns down, the news headline would read "Home Depot burns," not "30 homes lost."
No, my friend who is sitting next to me is not a blob of cells. But then, he's wasn't a blob of cells with the potential to become a human being, even when he was an embryo. He was an organized organism. That organism has continued to this day, without the purposeful action of another, intentional in the case of the destruction necessary to embryonic stem cell research.
As others have pointed out, it's natural for us to feel more emotional attachment to the people that we know and love and who are easily identifiable as "persons." But, just because I don't recognize a given human being as a "person" does not make him any less a human being or any less human-enough to deserve protection from intentional acts to kill him. After all, as a woman (and a talkative physician), I wouldn't be considered a "person" in much of the world.
2 comments:
I thank you for responding to my comment :) I hope to talk here more in future. Some real debate and inteligent, informed conversation will be a welcome change from the places where I usually post.
I agree completly with you on one point - sacrificing humans for research is clearly, unquestionably wrong. I just dont see the embryos as humans, at least for moral purposes. Treating them as such creates some very difficult inconsistancies.
For example... well, im not an embryologist. I must admit, my knowledge of biology is no more than A-level equivilent. But ive seen images of embryos at the stage at which embryonic stem cells would be removed. The images are stock-footage in documentories, and images in textbooks - and may or may not even be human. I certinly cant tell. I doubt anyone could tell. I assume - though I may be wrong - that if you had a laboratory of equipment to observe and poke them with there would be no way to determine if they are human without either genetic tests or letting them develop further. Their information content is similar to that of an animal embryo. Their nervous system is absolutly identical (zero). For all practical purposes, they are the same. Yet they cannot be used, while not just animal embryos but full-grown animals are used daily - not just for science or medicine, but for the rather less nobel purpose of food.
Clearly, a serious inconsistancy here, if two things which are so similar are treated so differently. I understand your views and concerns. Its just hard for me to create a rational framework incorporating them without either having to prop it up with 'this just is' and 'exclude that' in vital places or become a dedicated campaigner for the abolition of meat consumption.
No, its just too early a stage to draw the moral line. Far too early - there is genetic individually, but genes alone are meaningless until the functions they code for are carried out. There is no individuality at all beyond that - and if all embryos are identical, they are all replaceable. And therefor expendable.
The line does need to be drawn somewhere, but not there. Too soon.
Oh, one more thing... you are right, I do not 'get it.' But I would like to. I have a facination with viewpoints, how the same issue can be seen in many ways and reaching many conclusions.
Post a Comment