 |
 |
Bev and Murph, I agree also with Dennis and understand that you see the fetus as a human life with all the rights and privileges of humankind He also is correct that we see it from 2 points of view that will never be resolved. Ethics and morality are relative whether you or I like it or not. What prevents you from killing me if your religion states death to infidels What prevented the World Trade Center Bombing when people on a holy Jihad chose to bomb it?- nothing. What preventented your ancestors from killing mine when they refused to convert?- nothing and many died. In fact the inquisition was seen by some as the caring thing to do. It was seen as a way to purify individuals by fire. What could be nobler and more moral than that? You can't say with absolute certainty that your concept of when life begins is correct any more than I can. It is an impossible issue to resolve. In the case of stem cell research the embryos are taken from IVF couples. They are conceived outside of the womb and then implanted allowing childless couples to conceive.. Some of the embryos are left over and would be destroyed. Given this situation would you 1) Use the embryo's for research and the development of cell lines, 2) throw the embryos out (and therefore in your view kill a human being that already exists 3) See the embryos as people and demand that they have the full rights of every human being and that they be implanted in someone to carry them to term, 4) Ban IVF all together and do with the problem (and prevent the birth of many wanted children who would have been produced by that method.) There are significant problems with all of these answers depending on your point of view. The Bible wasn't written when we had to grapple with these questions. It is the record of an ancient people as they struggled to find how to live with each other and their God and nature- a document which certainly should be used in conjunction with other documents and opinions from other peoples who make up our country and our world but it cannot be IMHO the sole determinate in a free multiethnic society. The difficult choices will have to be made. No one would advocate the sadistic Nazi experimentation or the infirm or on children. They by any definition are living beings. What about the experiments that many of us have taken part in. You wouldn't (except for fetal cell research) stop them would you? That is a slippery slope too. We need to be careful about informed consent and what constitutes it. Some people say that because we are so desperate we can't give it even when we are told what the risks are. At the other end is a tightly controlled Human Subjects Committee which weighs the morality and the necessity of human experimentation a difficult process which must take into account all faiths as well as those with no faith at all. Religion is a personal thing which must be practiced personably. When one religion tries too exert its superiority over another we are on dangerous ground which leads to totalitarianism if not countered. That is why I am so passionate about the issue (in addition to the stem cell research which has such great possibilities). Charlie Merlin H Brown wrote: > Dennis is correct in his summation of this debate. The real question is > -- when does human life begin? Charles Meyer says he takes great offense > at my husband's comparison to the killing of the Jewish people during > Hitler's reign because he thinks we are comparing "tissue" to human life. > What Charles does not understand, but Dennis does, is that we believe > that the fetus IS human life. This debate will just continue to go round > and round with no one changing anyone else's mind. > > I am very sad, however, that so many on this list seem to believe that > morality is relative and that, as Joan Carol Urquhart states: "Anyone > with a heart would agree that to alleviate human suffering, at any moral > sacrifice, is good and right." Joan, you have just justified Columbine > -- after all, those young men were suffering and they chose the killing > of their classmates and themselves to alleviate their suffering. And by > the way -- Charles -- what about the physicians in Hitler's Third Reich > who used the infirmed and young children for the purpose of medical > research? God forbid that we should ever justify such crimes! > > On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:27:01 +0800 Dennis Greene <[log in to unmask]> > writes: > > Important as this issue is, I suspect it is undebateable in this > > forum. I > > say this because the two sides are arguing about totally different > > things. > > > > It seems to me obvious that if an embryo is a separate human life, > > killing > > it is the same as killing any other human and the debate should be > > about > > whether we as a society can justify institutionalising the killing > > of large > > numbers of our population in order to maintain the living standards > > of the > > rest of the population (not to mention the health of some of that > > population). > > > > It seems to me equally obvious that if an embryo is not a separate > > human > > life, but merely a piece of human tissue in the same way that a > > kidney, > > liver, cornea, lung or heart is human tissue then the debate about > > aborting > > such tissue is meaningless and the debate should be centered on the > > ethics > > of organ transplant. > > > > What is not obvious - to me or anyone else- is which of the above is > > correct. In the absence of a definitive, indisputable, 'moment of > > becoming > > human' we each form our own opinion. What then seems to happen is > > that when > > these (in broad terms) two bodies of opinion clash, each dismisses > > the > > others primary position (the humanity or otherwise of an embryo) as > > being > > ridiculous and then, claiming the moral high ground, proceeds to > > conduct the > > argument relevant to their own position. With one side debating > > genocide > > and the other tissue transplants it's no wonder the debate is making > > no > > progress. > > > > So it might help take some heat out of the discussion if we keep in > > mind > > that there are two debates rolled into one; that however well > > argued, and > > passionately believed in, our own viewpoint (whichever it is) rests > > on an > > unprovable premise; and that stating that premise as if it were an > > absolute > > does not make it so. > > > > It seems likely that this debate, both here and in society at large, > > is > > going to continue - could we, at least here, treat each other with > > respect. > > > > > > Dennis. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Dennis Greene 49/dx 37/ onset 32 > > There's nothing wrong with me that a cure for PD won't fix! > > email - [log in to unmask] > > Website - http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/ > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -- ****************************************************************************************** Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton (Madison), Wisconsin [log in to unmask] ******************************************************************************************