 |
 |
Two more or less philosophical comments on these issues. The first concerns the quote below: QUOTE: This is a meaningless argument. In the final analysis both the pro life and pro choice arguments are based on an act of faith. No one has as yet been able to determine when human life begins and it is highly unlikely that anyone ever will. The pro life camp argue that you cannot condone the wholesale killing of human beings. The pro choice camp argue that we are not dealing with human beings. NEITHER side can prove its basic tenet, hence my comment that each is based on an act of faith. UNQUOTE. It seems to me that the determination when life begins is really not a question of Faith. Rather it is a matter which needs to be defined. There are many issues in human interactions which do not have a right or wrong answer but must nevertheless be dealt with. In the Sciences we deal with this by defining a connection between things. This is usually easy because there are rarely ethical or emotional issues involved. For instance we could define the color red as electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength. No controversy here. Similarly it is essentially the job of the courts (usually the higher ones) to make decisions which amount to definitions of human behavior. The precedents which arise amount to definitions. Thus if a case concerning the beginning of life came to the Supreme Court they would have to decide when life begins. This then is a definition and not a decision of what is right or wrong. Notice that the emphasis is on decide. A second point: This may be the first time in history when the development and possibly the propagation of a cure is based on portions of a "living" human organism. To take the contrary view, if stem cells can be used to develop a cure and stem cells are only available from fertilized cells then a cure is impossible without those cells. Notice that we coming right back to a definition/court decision. I am excluding here transplants because the ethical issues involved are a little different and are less subject to controversy. There is also something else lurking out there. The rest of the world. Suppose a cure is developed, say in Japan and it requires Stem cells. Do we exclude this cure in the US on ethical grounds? Something the think about. K-F cg Carline