 |
 |
Dear Listfriends, I have been sorting out my thoughts on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research as regards the meaning of the term "life." In the stem cell controversy two meanings of "life" get confused: 1) biological life and 2) what I will call lived life. Biological life is the coordinated functioning body parts. Lived life is the series of actions and experiences of the person whose life it is. It's lived life that has value and dignity, that we have a right to, that we share with a loved one. It is what we fear losing and what we mourn the taking of. Biological life is the medium through which lived life happens. Biological life is mainly valuable not in itself, but because it supports lived life. The statements "life begins at conception" and "no one knows when life begins" are not in conflict once this distinction is recognized. The life that begins at conception is all biological, as is the life that persists in an artificially maintained permanent vegetative state. Lived life cannot arise before the formation of the brain and the emergence of the mind. At the 5-day stage of embryonic development when stem cells are extracted there is no one whose rights are violated or whose life is taken, because there is as yet no person, no "who." That is why donation to medical research of surplus embryos created in vitro is something like organ donation, and is not human sacrifice. Phil Tompkins dx 1990 Amherst, Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn