For purposes of discussion, assume that all human life is sacred. How do you determine who is alive and who isn't? Physicians have some well-established tests for this, depending mainly on the detection of brain function.

<link>

Basically, if you have no detectable brain functions, no one's home and you're eligible to become an organ donor.

Try and apply these tests to a stem cell. You can't, because it has no brain and therefore is not alive according to the generally accepted medical tests.

The fundamental question to me seems to be why we protect individual human life to begin with. To some, it seems they have a supernatural conception of what life is, but that it begins at conception and ends at "death" (with Terri Schiavo really vexing their conception of how death is defined). To me, we protect individual human life because each individual has a consciousness and the capacity to experience life, joy, pain etc. With that standard, embryos, lacking any consciousness at all, don't deserve special protection. We can create them, destroy them, utilize them, whatever, and they fear nothing, experience nothing, feel nothing. No nervous system = no need for human rights in my book.

By saying that embryos are just flesh, you cannot claim what consciousness is, or that you have consciousness.

By not having something intrinsically linked to humanity, you cannot differentiate between us and animals, trees, or even rocks.

San:

By not having something intrinsically linked to humanity, you cannot differentiate between us and animals, trees, or even rocks.

...unless we use our eyes.

wayhey1:

San:

By not having something intrinsically linked to humanity, you cannot differentiate between us and animals, trees, or even rocks.

...unless we use our eyes.

lol thanks. I had not idea how to go about responding to that post, but you seem to have figured it out.

Faustling wrote the following post at 01/24/2008 4:50 PM:

"Basically, if you have no detectable brain functions, no one's home and you're eligible to become an organ donor.
Try and apply these tests to a stem cell. You can't, because it has no brain and therefore is not alive according to the generally accepted medical tests."

There's a really great book called The Ethical Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga which discusses several bioethical issues in relation to neuroscience. He talks about the definition of "human" in terms of the state of development of the nervous system. The discussion is in terms of abortion (and at what point abortion becomes killing what could be defined as human), but i think it can be applied to stem cell research, as well.

cyounts:

Faustling wrote the following post at 01/24/2008 4:50 PM: "Basically, if you have no detectable brain functions, no one's home and you're eligible to become an organ donor. Try and apply these tests to a stem cell. You can't, because it has no brain and therefore is not alive according to the generally accepted medical tests." There's a really great book called The Ethical Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga which discusses several bioethical issues in relation to neuroscience. He talks about the definition of "human" in terms of the state of development of the nervous system. The discussion is in terms of abortion (and at what point abortion becomes killing what could be defined as human), but i think it can be applied to stem cell research, as well.

This seems like a reasonable approach to the issue. I fear though that it will continue to be basically ignored and rejected by most of the public due to it's seemingly esoteric nature. Letting advanced neuroscience determine moral action? People would rather just make it simple; like drawing the line at conception. They are willing to overlook the fact that sperm and eggs are living human tissue before they
fuse and that a fertilized egg has no nervous system or consciousness and expresses no more human morphological
phenotype than any other animal embryo, because people want the simple answer.

Letting science determine the end of life was just fine with Pope Pius XII, who ruled that it "does not fall within the competence of the Church." For some reason, though, he was very certain about the beginning of life, though the subject is far more complex. Where did he get these brilliant scientific insights? Had he in fact any education or training which would qualify him to make such a judgement?

"unless we use our eyes."

And see just atoms.

"Where did he get these brilliant scientific insights?"

Life is not scientific.

Life is society.

Ethics deals with philosophy, not science.

San:

"unless we use our eyes."

And see just atoms.

Step away from the microscope and you'll get a better view.

San:

"unless we use our eyes."

And see just atoms.

Step away from the microscope and you'll get a better view.

"Step away from the microscope and you'll get a better view."

Without a "soul" to differentiate humans from the rest, we are just a collection of atoms no different than everything else.

I think there are lots of things that differentiate humans from everything else. We are the most balanced and adaptable of things, except when we choose not to be. I'm not sure about a soul - I've been trying to figure that one out. I suspect if we have souls, then we aren't alone in it.

Sanjait:

The fundamental question to me seems to be why we protect individual human life to begin with. To some, it seems they have a supernatural conception of what life is, but that it begins at conception and ends at "death" (with Terri Schiavo really vexing their conception of how death is defined). To me, we protect individual human life because each individual has a consciousness and the capacity to experience life, joy, pain etc. With that standard, embryos, lacking any consciousness at all, don't deserve special protection. We can create them, destroy them, utilize them, whatever, and they fear nothing, experience nothing, feel nothing. No nervous system = no need for human rights in my book.

Bravo

The issue is not that it is life with human DNA, is should be that it is a sentient, conscious human being.