The SMH has an article on how stem cells used to repair a Korean woman's spine and allow her to walk (albeit with a frame) again.
Slashdot also has a discussion on it.
Note that this was done using stem cells from cord blood and not embryos, avoiding the whole ethical kerfuffle surrounding the use of embryos. However, as I understand it, stem cells from cord blood cannot be used in as many ways as stem cells from embryos. I'm not quite sure where I stand on this whole issue. I have seen opinions from both "sides", and there are flaws in each. However, the benefit that could come from the use of stem cells is tremendous, so I don't know if it is that easy to just reject the use of stem cells from embryos.
Well, this whole debate about stem cell research has, as you noted, a variety of arguments that can be used to affirm or counter the research method. In essence, this entire debate rages around life, and where we believe life begins. Where does life begin? If a lifes begining is defined by the ‘creation’ of the soul, does this occur when the sperm cell hits the egg? or is it when the baby pops out? What im trying to say is, what constitutes to murder? Murder can be defined as killing the soul, and if a soul is created on concievement, then surely stem cell research using embryos is unethical - since it is murder.
HOWEVER, I truly believe that a work around to this issue is using embryos that would otherwise be thrown out, in the IVF treatment process. IVF requires the injection of embryo’s in the womans uterus, however, thousands of embryos are created and then not used in the IVF treatment process. Why not use these emrbyos that would otherwise be thrown out?
The reponse that I’ve been given to that is those embryos are still POTENTIAL lives. Although they may sit in a freezer for years, they still have everything they need (except a womb) to grow into a baby. That seems to be the distinction.
I have argued the same thing as you, saying that they wouldn’t be used, so why does it make a difference whether they’re thrown out or used for stem cell research? However, it is a very utilitarian argument, and certainly puts the “ends” before the “means”.
Yep, and food is also a potential life because it is the building blocks of human beings.
No, that’s not strictly correct. Food helps people grow, but food on it’s own does not have the potential to grow into a human. A human embryo does… I think that’s the distinction.
What about semen?
You cannot tell me someone cries ‘baby killer’ everytime you have a wet dream?
Hehe. I think the reasoning is that semen on its own cannot form into a human being, and neither can an ovum. However when conception occurs, everything needed to form a baby is there and so there is the potential for life.
I guess it depends on whether you believe in that or not.
the point about the beginning of a soul is really well thought out. but maybe i just say that because i am not savvy enough to think it up myself. legally, can’t you only be considered for murder charges if the human has been born? or is it that the child must be conceived, or that it must be at a particular stage in development? whichever way, people should be consistent in such beliefs and either support or discourage killing babies/embryos etc.
I think there’s a legal precedent right now that in the case where an unborn child is killed through the actions of another person, they aren’t liable. There was a case recently where a man ran over a pregnant woman, and her unborn child died (I’m not sure about her). He was prosecuted for manslaughter or murder charges, but wasn’t found guilty. I think that was mainly because they could not agree on when the baby is “alive” and human.
Ideally, consistency would be nice, but I don’t know if we’ll reach it. If you say that an embryo is a human (and alive) from conception, then morning-after pills would suddenly become illegal, and abortion to a greater degree. However, if you make it so that an embryo is not regarded as human and “alive” until a later stage in development (e.g. third trimester), then that obviously doesn’t play well with people who are pro-life.
Tough subject…
A baby can be created from just an ovum, so a period is killing someone.
Remember, Dolly the cloned sheep? Only an ovum was required, and that is the same with humans.
You’re taking that a bit too far. For a baby to be created from an ovum itself, you need considerably more than the linings of the uterus. I’m not familiar with the procedure, but I suspect it involves lots of poking and prodding, petri dishes, transferring the nucleus from another ovum, etc.
A woman’s period, on the other hand, is just the ejection of an unused ovum and the lining of the uterus. There’s no way the ovum involved in that could “spontaneously” develop into a baby, so that’s not killing anything.