Ive got a paper to write arguing stem cells and the ethics involved…
It all comes down to this notion of killing a person…when does a fertilized egg become a person…is a fertilized egg a person…? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated…
I think the most striking difference between human life and other life is a certain kind of brain activity. Since killing other life forms isn’t, by law, murder, than we can’t say ending life is murder, only human life. An egg doesn’t yet have human brain activity, so I wouldn’t say it’s human. If you argue it’s a potential human, there’s an infinite regression; where does the potential begin? With the big bang. On the other hand, an adult human who has lost human brain activity, but is in a coma, is still human, even if we call it a vegetable. It still is murder if you kill it. So it’s more than mere brain activity that qualifies you as a human; it’s like Mensa, once you’re in, you’re in for life, no matter how dumb you get later on (and we all get dumb later on.) Hope this helps. This is one of the slipperiestslopes around. For the clearest analysis I’ve ever seen on abortion, read Carl Sagan on abortion, it’s available online for free. It might be relevant to stem cell research.
I think the most striking difference between human life and other life is a certain kind of brain activity. Since killing other life forms isn’t, by law, murder, than we can’t say ending life is murder, only human life. An egg doesn’t yet have human brain activity, so I wouldn’t say it’s human. If you argue it’s a potential human, there’s an infinite regression; where does the potential begin? With the big bang. On the other hand, an adult human who has lost human brain activity, but is in a coma, is still human, even if we call it a vegetable. It still is murder if you kill it. So it’s more than mere brain activity that qualifies you as a human; it’s like Mensa, once you’re in, you’re in for life, no matter how dumb you get later on (and we all get dumb later on.) Hope this helps. This is one of the slipperiestslopes around. For the clearest analysis I’ve ever seen on abortion, read Carl Sagan on abortion, it’s available online for free. It might be relevant to stem cell research.
It’s a question of the process which follows that incipient event. It’s not a “killing” in that sense for it is the alpha in utero for all mammals (platypus and echnida excepted). From THAT point, the only difference is in potential and it is precisely this which is “negated” because its development has been preempted. It is the steady state of it’s process which is destroyed NOT the entity that WOULD BE its incarnation. There is nothing wired enabling nerves to respond; the only feedback is to its own chemisty. So the question also boils down to - sorry to be so unenlightening - do you kill any part of the future when you NEGATE the present in ANY of its current stages of development? All of life is, in toto , NOTHING BUT chemistry in spite of the inviolable laminations we impose on it. The question is or remains should we within a virtually infinite series of fertilizations usurp “its” future in favor of massive reductions of misery very specific and personal to a suffering individual?