dizzle
July 2nd 2007, 06:37 AM
Those clumps of pluripotent human stem cells in a dish may be morally significant clumps of cells, and simply appealing to potential medical benefits is not a sufficient reason to justify their destruction. An additional argument must be made—and that argument is that a human embryo in a dish is not yet a bearer of moral rights. That is the proper place for the debate to be joined with those who oppose embryonic stem-cell research. They argue that once a human cell possesses a unique DNA code, it is a bearer of basic human rights, chief among which is the right not to be killed. Their argument may not be valid, but it cannot be ignored. Also, trying to diminish this rational moral argument (which of course may be true or false) by calling its supporters ignorant religious fanatics who oppose the advance of medical science is not only a bad argument, it is an act of unwarranted antireligious prejudice.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19486507/site/newsweek/page/0/
Related article here:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6691
Only One Question
I have argued elsewhere that only one question needs to be answered to resolve what many think is a complex moral problem. That question is, What is it? Both abortion and ESCR kill something that is alive. In fact, both destroy the same thing at different stages of development. Whether it’s right or not to take that life depends entirely on what it is we’re killing.
Let me put it as clearly as I know how. If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, no justification for either abortion or ESCR is necessary. However, if it is a human being, no justification for taking his or her life is adequate. This single, succinct ethic is adequate to cover contingencies on both sides of the question.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19486507/site/newsweek/page/0/
Related article here:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6691
Only One Question
I have argued elsewhere that only one question needs to be answered to resolve what many think is a complex moral problem. That question is, What is it? Both abortion and ESCR kill something that is alive. In fact, both destroy the same thing at different stages of development. Whether it’s right or not to take that life depends entirely on what it is we’re killing.
Let me put it as clearly as I know how. If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, no justification for either abortion or ESCR is necessary. However, if it is a human being, no justification for taking his or her life is adequate. This single, succinct ethic is adequate to cover contingencies on both sides of the question.