 |
 |
On 1 Sep 2004 at 10:59, KF Etzold wrote: > I would like to raise an issue of accuracy and understanding: > Destruction means usually that the destroyed item has totally ceased > to exist. For instance a living being ceases to exist and no > recognizable parts somehow survive. This however, is not true for the > embryos used to generate stem cells. It is true that it will not > develop into a new human being, but it does not get "destroyed" in the > above sense. The cells live on and have their living identity. I view > destruction as a dead end (pardon the pun), whereas the use of the > cells causes the at least a portion to the original cell clump to live > on, albeit in a different form. All matter in the Universe has and always will continue to exist. It merely "changes attributes". Thus, a human being (adult and sentient), when it dies, returns to more basic elements and gets "recycled" into something else. Does that mean that it is acceptable to kill a human being simply because its cell structure will "live on" as something else? The argument which KF Etzold makes is sophistry. If one feels that killing a human being (or its embryonic base) is acceptable, then so be it. One does not need to use sophistry to justify one's position. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., F.A.C.S., P. C. Neurological Surgery 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com/> "Ex Tristitia Virtus" Disclaimer: That which is written in my e-mail is not to be considered as "medical advice". Such advice can only be given after a formal, in-person, consultation between doctor and patient. ********************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn