well i didn't bother with their plurals anyhow is a embryo/fetus a human being and should it therefore be granted human rights?
Spoiler:ShowI believe this to be the predating question to anything related to genetic research/stem cell research and its moral controversies(couldn't find a good wording for this
Well my personal view is that a embryo is not a human being because it has not yet developed a nervous system hence it does not have the capacity to feel or think, and that the argument of "it has the potential to become a baby" has no ends whatsoever, after all doesn't that mean sex shouldn't involve contraception after all we are terminating the potential to human life, or masturbation shouldn't be allowed we are yet again terminating these feeble sperm cells who have the potential to fuse with a egg cell and form a human being?
I would be interested in your views on this.
x Turn on thread page Beta
Human rights and embryo/fetus watch
- Thread Starter
- 25-03-2011 08:30
- 25-03-2011 11:51
Amino acids have the potential to form together to create life, bacteria has the ability to produce and create a colony, etc. etc. etc. That does not stop people consuming or destroying both. Does eating chickens prevent the formation of life? Yes, those chickens could have reproduced and given birth...
Stem cell research is improving the quality of life of people who are already sentient, through helping people with paralysis or who need new tissues urgently. Not using stem cells would increase death rates, both now and in the future, because of the inability to do the things that can be done with stem cells.
When the stem cells are taken, the embryo is not scientifically classed as a human being - it is a group of cells with the potential to form a human being. This means that an embryo is not entitled to Human Rights.
If embryos and fetuses were entitled to human rights, abortion would not be legal. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion up until 1869.
Bringing attention to this:
"Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive."
Last edited by StepanVoronin; 25-03-2011 at 11:53.
- 25-03-2011 13:25
The amount of opposition is quite ridiculous. Especially when you consider the number of embryos that are spontaneously aborted naturally without the mother even knowing she was pregnant, the number of excess embryos discarded by IVF clinics, etc. And the sheer potential of ES cells is huge, but the research is sorely hampered for no good reason. It makes me a sad panda.