This is the last post in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Thank you for writing back so promptly. I understand if such a timely response will not be forthcoming.
I will contact the researchers regarding my morula question. I'll let you know what I find out (after all the holidays).
You mention that you do not have "a checklist" for rendering an answer for the moral worth of a human, ie a person.
However, at the end of your last response you assert, "[I]t is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable."
What observable and testable criteria are to be shown? What is the purpose of these observable and testable criteria? ("Brain activity"? What specific activity(ies)?)
I assert that these observable and testable criteria of which you speak, whatever they (it) are (is), will by necessity require you to make a moral or metaphysical determination of whether a human has moral worth, ie, s/he is not to be killed.
My criteria is the capacity for sentient cognition, not the actual realization, if ever, of these capacities, but the capacity itself. I'm glad you brought up the example of "adults with severe mental handicaps [that] may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant." I have a nephew who probably won't mentally reach beyond 9 mo. However, since he is the son of my sister and brother-in-law who are human persons with the same capacity, he is a person with moral worth who should not be killed for any reason.
Without your specific definition of a person with moral worth (who should not be killed for any reason, save self defense in clear and present danger), I cannot go forward with that part of our mind opening dialog (I thank you for being so civil).
Good day,
gbm3
---
[Extra email]
Hello [ThiZ],
A while back, you wrote:
"No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term 'embryonic stem cells' and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further."
I looked up some references for further information before I contact scientists directly. Are the following references relevent towards the procedure of which you write above regarding obtaining ESC from morulas? Which articles are not relevant (and why)?
http://wf-f.org/OAR_StemCells.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec06/stemcells_08-24.html
http://www.cbhd.org/content/%E2%80%9Cethical%E2%80%9D-embryonic-stem-cell-research
http://media.www.lewisflyer.com/media/storage/paper638/news/2009/02/11/News/The-Church.And.Stem.Cell.Research-3623523.shtml
Thank you for your time,
gbm3
---
I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and I apologize for this profuesly, but I will not be able to continue to communicate with you on this subject. I am not qualified to give your questions the treatment they deserve. I am a science fan, and a student, and while I have my own opinions, I am not an activist for either side. I'm having a difficult time restarting this blog after a few incidents last semester, and I cannot afford the time or energy to play devils advocate for subjects for which I am not entirely devoted.
I would, however, like to thank you for your courtesy in our conversations, despite our differing opinions, I am truly grateful for that.
-[ThiZ]
---
[[My last email:]
Hello [ThiZ],
Well, I'm sorry to read that you're not going forward on this fruitful dialog (I like to read your point of view). I hope you all the best in your studies and in all that you do. If you feel like starting this conversation up again, by all means do so.
Thank you and God bless you,
[gbm3]
06 February 2010
Zygotic Inquiry IV
This is forth in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Way back, I thought it prudent to wait a while before responding to your last email ("I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow").
I would like to first take up the issue of personhood (again). You said, "I do not believe it is possible to say 'this is a person and that is not' based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one." I totally agree that a zygote is not a child in the same way that a 2 mo. infant is not the same as an adult (say, >30 yrs). There are criteria of being a human that are met by the adult that the infant cannot realize in actuality. An infant cannot reproduce since the reproductive organs do not function yet. The infant cannot actually communicate about last week. Yet, the infant has the potential to become an adult.
I don't think there can be any argument about the above observations, but do you really mean to say that the "[human zygote (with a gender assigned at fertilization)] has the potential to become *a person*"? In other words, are you saying that an infant has moral worth that needs to be protected and the human zygote potentially has moral worth which s/he does not have at his/her level of development? Please advise on these important questions for my understanding of your position (I'm still not clear, sorry).
At this point, I would like to posit an important distinction between potential and capacity, or passive potential and active potential. I pile of metal and parts has a passive potential to become a car since outside forces must do the work to assemble the car. A monarch caterpillar has the active potential to become a monarch butterfly since the monarch itself causes itself internally to obtain wings. Active potential is a peculiarly particular aspect of biological systems. A monarch will never have the capacity of talking about last week while a human does not have the capacity to fly with wings.
"By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, 'you' will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant."
This phrase curiously mixes beginning of life ideas with end of life ones. On its face, it seems (probably mistakenly in confusion) that if one does not have a brain, s/he is dead. Further, a zygote actually is forming a brain from fertilization in that the zygote has the information (programmed) to form the brain internally. However, objectively the human zygote is not dead since it is constantly creating by itself the systems of the body including the brain. The human without a brain with an active potential of human cognizance has already lived its life to its conscious end (although s/he still has worth / is a person; see below).
The criterion of having a functioning brain (human level cognition) is a troubling one since in a metaphysical sense, if one does not have this, one is not a person (moral worth attached as a human). (I disagree that this is "an uncommon position".)
Consider the example of a reversibly comatose human. S/he does not have human level cognition in actuality, but they have the active potential, or capacity to gain it in a finite time. This state is analogous to a human zygote: the human zygote has the capacity to gain human level cognition in a finite time. The fact that one has an actual brain is irrelevant since they both have the same potential (finite time needed) to gain human level cognition. Of course this assumes that the reversibly comatose human has moral worth, or is a person.
So, please permit me to deal my cards. To have moral worth as a person does not come down to what one does (human level cognition), but what one is (capacity for human level cognition). As soon as a human zygote is created with a gender (no longer gametes of sperm or egg; "fertilized egg" is a misnomer since an egg has no gender), they must be protected as every other person must be protected.
"Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means.
"As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them?"
Even though it may seem convoluted in some way, can't your observation be said about all crimes? As a Christian, I realize all people sin, some to criminal proportions. However, the rule of law set by our US and state constitutions must be observed unless they be ignored and lay the path toward anarchy and destroy the common good.
Obviously not all crimes carry the same weight in penalty. However, crimes against humanity (even if technically legal; I suggest reading Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html ) cannot be condoned by any civilized society including ours.
Slavery was once legal. Now, even though its still illegal, slavery/human trafficking is still going on right under our noses in this country. Should it become legal again? Of course not.
[break]
About the ESCR ("morula-derived stem cells"), none of the articles mention what is done with the embryos after they survive the taking of some of their cells.
Well, I'm done for now. Let me know what you think.
BTW, I noticed you like debates on line. I didn't know if you saw this one: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102308.html .
Good day,
gbm3
---
Mr. gmb3,
Thank you for waiting, my schedule has indeed been extremely full in recent weeks, and I am taking advantage of my Thanksgiving free time to respond to this message before I have to return to my previous schedule.
Before anything else, I would like to address your question about the morulas used during the research we discussed earlier. While I do not have an exact answer, I do know that many embryos are either re-frozen, or discarded. If you wish to know more, I suggest you contact the researchers themselves about the matter.
Regarding your position on personhood, I do not view the matter in the same way as you do. Nor do I, as you seem to insinuate with your comments regarding communication and reproductive ability, have some kind of check off list about whether or not something has a “moral worth”. Furthermore, while I do understand your analogies regarding the two types of potential you have outlined, I do not agree with your position that a potential brain is equal to that of an active one. I apologize for troubling you, but as someone who does not believe in the metaphysical, I have no evidence that there is any sort of consciousness or “anyone” in a given body if there is no brain activity.
You bring up the case of a reversibly comatose human, but not an irreversibly damaged one. If a person has been damaged to that extent, then I do believe that what has made them, them, is indeed dead. Furthermore, while the body that remains is human, there is no “person” inside. In the case of a reversibly comatose human, they are still functioning to a degree as to be visible to outside forces, perhaps not physically, but brain scans are fantastic sources of information, and there are obvious differences between someone in a vegetative state, and someone who is simply trapped. If moral worth is a matter of one’s capacity for human level cognition, then one is presented with a new problem as adults with severe mental handicaps may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant.
Your conclusion that a zygote must be protected rests on the following propositions: that there is such a thing as moral worth, that people have moral worth, and that people are those members of homo sapiens who are capable (or will eventually be capable) of “human level cognition”. However, I do not agree with these propositions, as such I cannot accept the conclusion, nor will I be able to change your mind of the matters (not that I would ever intend to do so). I am grateful for having someone with whom to speak, and I hope I have helped you in some way, but it is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable.
-ThiZ
---
Hello,
Way back, I thought it prudent to wait a while before responding to your last email ("I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow").
I would like to first take up the issue of personhood (again). You said, "I do not believe it is possible to say 'this is a person and that is not' based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one." I totally agree that a zygote is not a child in the same way that a 2 mo. infant is not the same as an adult (say, >30 yrs). There are criteria of being a human that are met by the adult that the infant cannot realize in actuality. An infant cannot reproduce since the reproductive organs do not function yet. The infant cannot actually communicate about last week. Yet, the infant has the potential to become an adult.
I don't think there can be any argument about the above observations, but do you really mean to say that the "[human zygote (with a gender assigned at fertilization)] has the potential to become *a person*"? In other words, are you saying that an infant has moral worth that needs to be protected and the human zygote potentially has moral worth which s/he does not have at his/her level of development? Please advise on these important questions for my understanding of your position (I'm still not clear, sorry).
At this point, I would like to posit an important distinction between potential and capacity, or passive potential and active potential. I pile of metal and parts has a passive potential to become a car since outside forces must do the work to assemble the car. A monarch caterpillar has the active potential to become a monarch butterfly since the monarch itself causes itself internally to obtain wings. Active potential is a peculiarly particular aspect of biological systems. A monarch will never have the capacity of talking about last week while a human does not have the capacity to fly with wings.
"By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, 'you' will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant."
This phrase curiously mixes beginning of life ideas with end of life ones. On its face, it seems (probably mistakenly in confusion) that if one does not have a brain, s/he is dead. Further, a zygote actually is forming a brain from fertilization in that the zygote has the information (programmed) to form the brain internally. However, objectively the human zygote is not dead since it is constantly creating by itself the systems of the body including the brain. The human without a brain with an active potential of human cognizance has already lived its life to its conscious end (although s/he still has worth / is a person; see below).
The criterion of having a functioning brain (human level cognition) is a troubling one since in a metaphysical sense, if one does not have this, one is not a person (moral worth attached as a human). (I disagree that this is "an uncommon position".)
Consider the example of a reversibly comatose human. S/he does not have human level cognition in actuality, but they have the active potential, or capacity to gain it in a finite time. This state is analogous to a human zygote: the human zygote has the capacity to gain human level cognition in a finite time. The fact that one has an actual brain is irrelevant since they both have the same potential (finite time needed) to gain human level cognition. Of course this assumes that the reversibly comatose human has moral worth, or is a person.
So, please permit me to deal my cards. To have moral worth as a person does not come down to what one does (human level cognition), but what one is (capacity for human level cognition). As soon as a human zygote is created with a gender (no longer gametes of sperm or egg; "fertilized egg" is a misnomer since an egg has no gender), they must be protected as every other person must be protected.
"Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means.
"As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them?"
Even though it may seem convoluted in some way, can't your observation be said about all crimes? As a Christian, I realize all people sin, some to criminal proportions. However, the rule of law set by our US and state constitutions must be observed unless they be ignored and lay the path toward anarchy and destroy the common good.
Obviously not all crimes carry the same weight in penalty. However, crimes against humanity (even if technically legal; I suggest reading Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html ) cannot be condoned by any civilized society including ours.
Slavery was once legal. Now, even though its still illegal, slavery/human trafficking is still going on right under our noses in this country. Should it become legal again? Of course not.
[break]
About the ESCR ("morula-derived stem cells"), none of the articles mention what is done with the embryos after they survive the taking of some of their cells.
Well, I'm done for now. Let me know what you think.
BTW, I noticed you like debates on line. I didn't know if you saw this one: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102308.html .
Good day,
gbm3
---
Mr. gmb3,
Thank you for waiting, my schedule has indeed been extremely full in recent weeks, and I am taking advantage of my Thanksgiving free time to respond to this message before I have to return to my previous schedule.
Before anything else, I would like to address your question about the morulas used during the research we discussed earlier. While I do not have an exact answer, I do know that many embryos are either re-frozen, or discarded. If you wish to know more, I suggest you contact the researchers themselves about the matter.
Regarding your position on personhood, I do not view the matter in the same way as you do. Nor do I, as you seem to insinuate with your comments regarding communication and reproductive ability, have some kind of check off list about whether or not something has a “moral worth”. Furthermore, while I do understand your analogies regarding the two types of potential you have outlined, I do not agree with your position that a potential brain is equal to that of an active one. I apologize for troubling you, but as someone who does not believe in the metaphysical, I have no evidence that there is any sort of consciousness or “anyone” in a given body if there is no brain activity.
You bring up the case of a reversibly comatose human, but not an irreversibly damaged one. If a person has been damaged to that extent, then I do believe that what has made them, them, is indeed dead. Furthermore, while the body that remains is human, there is no “person” inside. In the case of a reversibly comatose human, they are still functioning to a degree as to be visible to outside forces, perhaps not physically, but brain scans are fantastic sources of information, and there are obvious differences between someone in a vegetative state, and someone who is simply trapped. If moral worth is a matter of one’s capacity for human level cognition, then one is presented with a new problem as adults with severe mental handicaps may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant.
Your conclusion that a zygote must be protected rests on the following propositions: that there is such a thing as moral worth, that people have moral worth, and that people are those members of homo sapiens who are capable (or will eventually be capable) of “human level cognition”. However, I do not agree with these propositions, as such I cannot accept the conclusion, nor will I be able to change your mind of the matters (not that I would ever intend to do so). I am grateful for having someone with whom to speak, and I hope I have helped you in some way, but it is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable.
-ThiZ
Zygotic Inquiry III
This is third in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Could you please provide some resources for the [non-destructive?] ESCR procedure you describe below? I can't find any with ease. What happens to the embryonic human when the stem cell is extracted? Implanted into woman? Discarded? Dies (I assume not)?
It is refreshing to hear that you think the "personhood" concept is "patently ridiculous".
"Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?"
Abortion, the Pill, and the "morning-after pill" were once illegal. They can be again. When they were illegal before, the punishments were not equal for each crime against humanity. Further, the doctor usually received the punishment in accordance with the severity with the crime. Nonetheless, abortion was still a crime.
Even M. Sanger (founder of Pl. Parenthood) said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." and "...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.." (from "Margaret Sanger Was Against Abortion?")
"What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a [I assume "human"] fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without [I assume you meant "with", not "without"] the sense of self-awereness?"
Actually, it's a human zygote. Calling it a "fertilized egg" is like calling you and me a "fertilized egg" at our current stages of devel. A human zygote is part of the human family, the animal (mature) is not. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights<, "...the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." "Binary system"? What do you mean by this (please clarify)? Either one is alive or dead? Black and white for morality/ethical nature of abortion/destructive ESCR? Thank you in advance for your reply.
gbm3
---
I am running low of time for today, so I apologize in advance for the inarticulate manner in which I will be attempting to answer your questions as soon as possible. I actually did mean "without" a sense of self-awareness. While the capacity for self-awareness if difficult to test in animals, it is impossible for it to exist in an embryo of any type before the creation of even the most rudimentary of neural systems. I do not look to any religious system OR man made entity such as the UN as my source of guidence about how to regard other living creatures. Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means. As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them? Here are links to four scientific papers addressing the topic of morula-derived stem cells:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109898906/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5664/1669
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670408
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120703181/abstract
By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, "you" will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant.
Furthermore, you are twisting what I said in regards to "personhood" and while I apologize for any unintentional obfuscation on my part (I do not believe it is possible to say "this is a person and that is not" based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one.) I must also state that I am somewhat taken aback by your manner of drawing attention to the matter.
Again, please forgive my terseness, and I thank you for being so civil, despite our different backgrounds. I look forward to hearing from you again, but I must also warn you that I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow.
-ThiZ
---
Hello,
Could you please provide some resources for the [non-destructive?] ESCR procedure you describe below? I can't find any with ease. What happens to the embryonic human when the stem cell is extracted? Implanted into woman? Discarded? Dies (I assume not)?
It is refreshing to hear that you think the "personhood" concept is "patently ridiculous".
"Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?"
Abortion, the Pill, and the "morning-after pill" were once illegal. They can be again. When they were illegal before, the punishments were not equal for each crime against humanity. Further, the doctor usually received the punishment in accordance with the severity with the crime. Nonetheless, abortion was still a crime.
Even M. Sanger (founder of Pl. Parenthood) said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." and "...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.." (from "Margaret Sanger Was Against Abortion?")
"What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a [I assume "human"] fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without [I assume you meant "with", not "without"] the sense of self-awereness?"
Actually, it's a human zygote. Calling it a "fertilized egg" is like calling you and me a "fertilized egg" at our current stages of devel. A human zygote is part of the human family, the animal (mature) is not. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights<, "...the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." "Binary system"? What do you mean by this (please clarify)? Either one is alive or dead? Black and white for morality/ethical nature of abortion/destructive ESCR? Thank you in advance for your reply.
gbm3
---
I am running low of time for today, so I apologize in advance for the inarticulate manner in which I will be attempting to answer your questions as soon as possible. I actually did mean "without" a sense of self-awareness. While the capacity for self-awareness if difficult to test in animals, it is impossible for it to exist in an embryo of any type before the creation of even the most rudimentary of neural systems. I do not look to any religious system OR man made entity such as the UN as my source of guidence about how to regard other living creatures. Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means. As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them? Here are links to four scientific papers addressing the topic of morula-derived stem cells:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109898906/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5664/1669
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670408
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120703181/abstract
By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, "you" will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant.
Furthermore, you are twisting what I said in regards to "personhood" and while I apologize for any unintentional obfuscation on my part (I do not believe it is possible to say "this is a person and that is not" based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one.) I must also state that I am somewhat taken aback by your manner of drawing attention to the matter.
Again, please forgive my terseness, and I thank you for being so civil, despite our different backgrounds. I look forward to hearing from you again, but I must also warn you that I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow.
-ThiZ
Zygotic Inquiry II
This is second in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Thank you for your response.
I did hear about the prenatal short-term memory from a site I visit daily: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071602.html.
Re. ESCR, you seem to indicate that you are only for adult stem cell research ("just" stem cells) and against embryonic SCR. Correct?
Re. abortion, you are against it unless external factors (not related to the preborn human's self-perpetuating development) should potentially suppress the preborn human's "brilliant" future. Correct?
Do you believe that a human starts as a non-person and then turns into a person at some point? (person=human with value/worth: to be protected by laws) If so, what are criteria(n) for personhood (when is a human a person)?
Thank you for answering my questions in advance.
Good day,
gbm3
---
No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term "embryonic stem cells" and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further.
What a waste.
As for your other topic, I am not of the mind that it matters what one believes about "personhood." Personally, I think that all things are transitional, but that means nothing to the legislative process. We, as a species, like to draw lines and put boxes around things, but nature doesn't work like that. There is no magical instant when something is transformed into something else, so trying to define what is a person and what is not is patently ridiculous. Even if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, and what then? Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?
What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without the sense of self-awereness?
I don't mean to be dramatic, but it truely is diffcult for me to understand those who see this, who see life itself, as a binary system, and I apologize for that handicap.
-ThiZ
---
Hello,
Thank you for your response.
I did hear about the prenatal short-term memory from a site I visit daily: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071602.html.
Re. ESCR, you seem to indicate that you are only for adult stem cell research ("just" stem cells) and against embryonic SCR. Correct?
Re. abortion, you are against it unless external factors (not related to the preborn human's self-perpetuating development) should potentially suppress the preborn human's "brilliant" future. Correct?
Do you believe that a human starts as a non-person and then turns into a person at some point? (person=human with value/worth: to be protected by laws) If so, what are criteria(n) for personhood (when is a human a person)?
Thank you for answering my questions in advance.
Good day,
gbm3
---
No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term "embryonic stem cells" and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further.
What a waste.
As for your other topic, I am not of the mind that it matters what one believes about "personhood." Personally, I think that all things are transitional, but that means nothing to the legislative process. We, as a species, like to draw lines and put boxes around things, but nature doesn't work like that. There is no magical instant when something is transformed into something else, so trying to define what is a person and what is not is patently ridiculous. Even if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, and what then? Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?
What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without the sense of self-awereness?
I don't mean to be dramatic, but it truely is diffcult for me to understand those who see this, who see life itself, as a binary system, and I apologize for that handicap.
-ThiZ
Zygotic Inquiry I
Since I'm snowed in, I thought I would start a series of posts (now instead of later) that will consist of an email conversation I had with "ThiZ", an atheist who writes from Colorado (each post will begin with my email and end with hers). It regards beginning of human life issues, mainly abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). I think it was a fruitful discussion in which I learned some new things about a unique perspective.
Enjoy! I surely did.
---
Hello,
I have a question: As a thinking person who used to be a zygote, do you think abortion and/or ESCR are immoral/unethical? (I didn't get a hit with an "abortion" search of your site.)
Thanks. [gbm3]
---
Greetings Mr. gbm3,
I apologize profusely for my tardiness, as you may have noticed by the great length between blog posts, I have been indisposed for several weeks.
My answer to your question is a rather complicated one, and worthy of discussion and perhaps a post of its own, however, I will attempt to give you the best quick answer I can.
I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but only so long as the cells in question are just that, stem cells. I'm actually more upset when the created zygotes (human OR animal) are allowed to actually differentiate and grow, only to be killed because they are no longer useful.
Additionally, while I do advocate the use of the morning-after pill and do not believe abortion should be outlawed, I still wish it wasn't necessary. Yes, "necessary", certainly not under all circumstances, not even close, but I truly do believe there are times when there is no other option.
When I consider the actual processes of fetal development, I find it remarkable, beautiful even. I don't like to think of it being interrupted, not for any religious reasons, but simply because life itself, is so amazing. However, if there is a chance that a child, or an animal, will only experience pain when it enters this world, if would be unwanted, hurt, or abandoned, then I would rather see the whole thing stopped before it can even begin, because once it is, it's BRILLIANT.
If you want to see to fascinating studies regarding what we do as early as 30 weeks in, check out this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715074924.htm from Science News. Also, here's an abstract about how we first learn taste for certain flavors: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/e88.
I hope this email has answered your questions, at least partially. If you have any more, please don't hesitate to write again. I hope you enjoy the articles
-ThiZ
Enjoy! I surely did.
---
Hello,
I have a question: As a thinking person who used to be a zygote, do you think abortion and/or ESCR are immoral/unethical? (I didn't get a hit with an "abortion" search of your site.)
Thanks. [gbm3]
---
Greetings Mr. gbm3,
I apologize profusely for my tardiness, as you may have noticed by the great length between blog posts, I have been indisposed for several weeks.
My answer to your question is a rather complicated one, and worthy of discussion and perhaps a post of its own, however, I will attempt to give you the best quick answer I can.
I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but only so long as the cells in question are just that, stem cells. I'm actually more upset when the created zygotes (human OR animal) are allowed to actually differentiate and grow, only to be killed because they are no longer useful.
Additionally, while I do advocate the use of the morning-after pill and do not believe abortion should be outlawed, I still wish it wasn't necessary. Yes, "necessary", certainly not under all circumstances, not even close, but I truly do believe there are times when there is no other option.
When I consider the actual processes of fetal development, I find it remarkable, beautiful even. I don't like to think of it being interrupted, not for any religious reasons, but simply because life itself, is so amazing. However, if there is a chance that a child, or an animal, will only experience pain when it enters this world, if would be unwanted, hurt, or abandoned, then I would rather see the whole thing stopped before it can even begin, because once it is, it's BRILLIANT.
If you want to see to fascinating studies regarding what we do as early as 30 weeks in, check out this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715074924.htm from Science News. Also, here's an abstract about how we first learn taste for certain flavors: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/e88.
I hope this email has answered your questions, at least partially. If you have any more, please don't hesitate to write again. I hope you enjoy the articles
-ThiZ
08 January 2010
Same-Sex Conversation
This week, I had a conversation with someone from the Episcopal Church. He has a family member that is a "woman priestess" (Christians in the Protestant Ecclesial Communities don't have valid sacramental ordinations). Obviously, he's not from the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), but the more liberal portion of the Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal (U.S.) Church is a part, at least in the state of Maryland).
After he talked about some of his family swimming the Tiber (converting to Catholicism from the liberal "Christianity" of the Episcopal Church), we talked about the openly and practicing lesbian (I don't know her name) who is originally from Maryland that is to be newly "ordained" in the Episcopal conference of California. She would be the second practicing homosexual to be "ordained" Episcopal bishop behind Gene Robinson of New England.
We then got onto same-sex "marriage". His main point was that gay people were born gay, and we all have to accept it and not discriminate against them. Among other things I've said before (on Youtube etc.), I countered briefly that we are all born into sin (except for two people, Jesus and Mary (Immaculate Conception) via Catholic theology), implying that same-sex attraction was one among many sins.
Well, in New Jersey's Senate, of all places, this point about being born gay has come up again. From Lifesitenews.com:
Further there are more testimonies at a Catholic Apostolate website that ministers to people with same-sex attraction, Courage Apostolate.
Well, if two thousand years of Tradition and the Bible (and current science) won't convince someone, I wonder what will?
(BTW, as far as I know the man with whom I was conversing does not have same-sex attraction and is married (without quotes) to a woman.)
After he talked about some of his family swimming the Tiber (converting to Catholicism from the liberal "Christianity" of the Episcopal Church), we talked about the openly and practicing lesbian (I don't know her name) who is originally from Maryland that is to be newly "ordained" in the Episcopal conference of California. She would be the second practicing homosexual to be "ordained" Episcopal bishop behind Gene Robinson of New England.
We then got onto same-sex "marriage". His main point was that gay people were born gay, and we all have to accept it and not discriminate against them. Among other things I've said before (on Youtube etc.), I countered briefly that we are all born into sin (except for two people, Jesus and Mary (Immaculate Conception) via Catholic theology), implying that same-sex attraction was one among many sins.
Well, in New Jersey's Senate, of all places, this point about being born gay has come up again. From Lifesitenews.com:
Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.
"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement. "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain.
"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."
Further there are more testimonies at a Catholic Apostolate website that ministers to people with same-sex attraction, Courage Apostolate.
Well, if two thousand years of Tradition and the Bible (and current science) won't convince someone, I wonder what will?
(BTW, as far as I know the man with whom I was conversing does not have same-sex attraction and is married (without quotes) to a woman.)
28 December 2009
Feast of the Holy Innocents
When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. (Matthew 2:16)
Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents during the season of Christmas (ends on the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord [Jesus]). This is when children under King Herod's rule and "its vicinity" where killed because he didn't want another king to threaten his rule and his power.
This feast reminds me of the tragedies of abortion and miscarriage. I wrote the motet below because of the tragedy of miscarriage, but I also realized that while my wife and I mourned the pre-birth death of our son or daughter, millions of mothers voluntarily and directly cause the death of their preborn son or daughter for no reason other than inconvenience or their "own way". They are the modern King Herods.
Judging these mothers is not the purpose of this post; it's just to show that some things never change: we all sin and deserve its proper wage. However, thanks be to God for forgiveness through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus the Holy, Innocent Child we celebrate during this season.
The motet I wrote:
03 December 2009
The Manhattan Declaration
I'm a Catholic signer along with many others of The Manhattan Declaration (summary and link below)
The summary from the website (link below):
The summary from the website (link below):
The Manhattan Declaration
A Call of Christian Conscience
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
- the sanctity of human life
- the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
- the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)