I would generally agree with you about extending rights and protections. Thats why in this case the burden of proof would be your’s, because an embryo in no way resembles a person in shape, form or abilities. And no need to apologize. Even if did come of sarcastic (which I don’t think you did), I would generally enjoy it. It is my primary language.
So, no embryonic surgery since no consent?
On the other hand, the parents do have the right to pull the plug on a terminally damaged infant who can only survive on life support. No living will there, of course.
Would you agree that an embryo is a stage of an individual human life?
One more thing, and this will come off as sarcastic itself I suppose, but if I were to point at a statue and say that it is infact human and deserving of all human rights and protections, is that sufficient to generate this debate and the path of ‘protection where there’s the least question’? How about if I got 50 or 60 people to agree with me and say that that statue is indeed human?
I would agree with that, and that it is a stage in partically every life, excluding humans as well. As are sperm and egg.
A statue is not a form of “human life” by any meaningful definition of the words “human” or “life.” An embryo is a form of human life. The question is where we go from there.
Not to me. I have fiercely loved her and protected her and nurtured her since the day she was conceived.
a statue (of a person) most certainly is a form of human life…
Could you elaborate?
We can extend this to beings that have emotions and feel pain. Since the ethical vegetarians claim that higher animals, at least, fall into this class, we should be default forbid killing them. If we found a talking pig, say, we’d clearly not allow it to be turned into bacon, right? Animals feel pain - fetuses do not. Animals have brain activity - fetuses do not. Fetuses share our DNA, but the ones in question will never become adults. You kill a cow, and you add to the obesity problem of some McDonald’s customer - you kill a fetus, and you might contribute to making the life of millions better.
My response is, that since these arguments are undecidable, we should let people make their own choices. Robbery and murder is not allowed because there is not question of the impact. Traffic laws are a part of the contract you make to be licensed - if you don’t want to obey them, you don’t have to drive. Taxes are part of a contract implicitly made by living in our society - if you don’t want to pay, you can leave (or get no income and never buy anything.).
As for cancer patients, if they gave consent, and if there was a valid reason for the research, I would have no ethical problem with your scenario.
You forget the Bill of Rights, which gives protection despite a super majority. We are of course not talking about whether Christian Scientists or animal rights activists of stem cell components can be elected, or present their views. We’re only talking about them imposing their views. We can even elect a Moslem who wishes to impose Islamic Law (though he might have trouble swearing to uphold the constitution) but that doesn’t mean he can pass laws requiring use of the chador, or forbidding the publication of images of people.
Soon there will be no government support at all, since the old lines are becoming useless.
ganked from m-w.com
form
1 a : the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material b : a body (as of a person) especially in its external appearance or as distinguished from the face
how is a statue (of a person) not a form of a human life? Perhaps a different use of the word ‘form’ than you were using? 
looking through the definitions from form, human and life, I can both reinforce and sink mine and your arguments.
Well, fair enough. 
But do you mean to say, I haven’t actually convinced you to switch sides in this debate? Your mind hasn’t been changed? You haven’t sworn off your old life? I was really holding out hope! 
Pazu:
The utilitarian argument is persuasive - especially with the conditions as set forth in the bill.
At the moment - yes. It is my understanding the successful use of embryonic stem cells will almost certainly require cloning (and intentional destruction of the cloned nascent life). I have no doubt unlike many that embryonic research will be successful, so the question is at the forefront of my concerns. If we are going down this path and we are confident in the outcome, all of the ramifications should be examined - including cloning.
The practical argument against this concern is science will find a way around the cloning issue (i.e., harvesting of the stem cells without destruction of the nascent life/embryo). But then what happens to the clone.
Ultimately (for me) it is a value judgment - is the nascent life of an embryo worth as much as a the suffering of a child or adult who could be cured by the destruction of the embryo. Fundementally, this is an easier question for some than others. It is a difficult question for me, despite the fact I suffer from non-life threatening, yet life altering, condition that could benefit from such research. A human life is a human life to me and it is hard for me to say that one should be sacrificed for another.
Frankly, I cannot say that my opinion would be the same if my condition was something like ALS. So I struggle with this issue.
I’ve already switched once If I switched again, I’d be labeled a flip-flopper!
For what it’s worth, I understand your (and my catholic parents’) argument. I just think its wrong. There is no harm in it, and it has mucho up-side for cures and transplants in real humans.
At least it makes more sense than “suspended life.”
And, as predicted, the coup de grace: the House fails to overturn Bush’s veto.
I think I’m going to go join the Pit thread on this. 
You could have done so before she was even concieved if you continued to use your imagination thusly.
The fact is, as an embryo, there was nothing there that had any interests at all to protect the interests of: you merely imagined onto the embryo your own senses of purposes, your own expectations. It didn’t have any of its own.
And embryo is a set of instructions on what steps to take that will lead to the construction of something that functions like the human persons we have all come to regard there being many good reasons to protect and care for. But as an embryo, this process has only barely begun and its still lacks every single one of basic structures and features that are crucial to any part of what it means to be a moral person.
Ascribing rights and concerns to an embryo is as good a way of jumping up and down and shouting “I don’t understand what morality is, or what it is for! I have no idea why we protect human lives and interests: I just go by my extremely litteral understanding of the words of the rules without with understanding the point of the rules themselves!”
No, before she was conceived, I could love the IDEA of her, but I could not love her because she did not exist. Before she was conceived, I did not protect and nurture her, because there was nothing to protect and nurture.
I never said she had interests of her own that she was aware of. However, she was my baby and I was her mother. It was my responsibility to do everything I could to keep her healthy and bring her to term. Now it is my responsibility to bring her to adulthood. I do not consider one of those responsibilities lesser or greater than the other.
“Barely begun” means nothing to me. It is either begun or it is not. Once the baby has begun to exist, then it does exist. Whether or not it has “basic structures and features” means nothing to me. It has the only thing necessary for me to consider it a human…unique human DNA, which is busily at work, creating those basic structures and features.
I love the “pro-lifers are simple-minded” argument. It’s a great way to get pro-lifers to respect the pro-choice POV, I can assure you. :rolleyes: