Re: New Abortion Quiz

Wow, Jack. I had never heard of HeLa cells. What a story! [
http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html
<http://www.jhu.edu/%7Ejhumag/0400web/01.html> ]
Thank you for mentioning them.

Could you talk a little about what positions the medical ethicists do take?
Thanks!

JimA

jack syme wrote:

> There are many medical ethicists that would strongly argue against
> your conception of what human is. And they may not be correct either,
> but you cannot solve the abortion debate, by just claiming that a
> fertilized egg is HUMAN.
>
> You have to be more convincing. What is your basis for this claim?
> Is it that the egg has become heterozygous? But, any part of our body
> that we cut off has heterozygous cells. So, unless you want to claim
> that using a loofah is killing a human, you need to be more precise.
> ;) HeLa cells are a heterozygous human cell culture that has been
> perpetuated for many generations, and no one claims that these are a
> person.
>
> But seriously. If you want to use biblical evidence about when you
> think "humanity", or perhaps personhood as the rationalists would call
> it, begins, feel free to do so. This may not convince unbelievers,
> but I would listen.
>
> Think of this, whatever your definition of human is, it will have
> implications at the other end of the life span. And, as a
> neurologist, I have a lot of experience with the other end, and I
> agree that whether or not an entity can sustain its own life is not
> required of being a human. At least that is my opinion on the matter.
>
> Dont just make a claim of what it is to be human, prove it to me.
>
> Jack
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Yates" <billyates@billyates.com>
> To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: New Abortion Quiz
>
>
>> George--
>>
>> Essentially your argument says it's OK to extract stem cells since we
>> don't know yet if we're killing one or two or more human beings.
>>
>> But, I will modify my sdtatement to:
>>
>> * The fertilized egg is HUMAN, one or more human beings (to account
>> for the possibility of multiple births), albeit in a very early stage
>> of development.
>>
>> Blessings,
>>
>> --Bill
>>
>> George Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Yates"
>>> <billyates@billyates.com>
>>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: New Abortion Quiz
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let's get down to basics...
>>>>
>>>> * Humans begin as the union of sperm and egg.
>>>> * The DNA of the fertilized egg is human DNA, a combination of the
>>>> parent's DNA.
>>>> * The fertilized egg is HUMAN, a human being, albeit in a very
>>>> early stage of development.
>>>> * The fertilized egg is ALIVE. It takes in energy from the mother
>>>> and grows.
>>>> * Therefore, we can accurately describe the fertilized egg as a
>>>> LIVING HUMAN BEING.
>>>> * We apply different terms to the developing human being depending
>>>> on its stage of development.
>>>> * Despite the different terms--blastocyst, embryu, fetus, baby--the
>>>> developing human being is STILL A LIVING HUMAN BEING.
>>>> * At the earlier stages of development, the developing human being
>>>> is incapable of self-sustaining its life.
>>>> * The fact that it is incapable of self-sustaining life does not
>>>> negate or invalidate its essential character as a LIVING HUMAN BEING.
>>>> * At various points in the human life span--infancy, accident,
>>>> illness, during surgery--a person may be incapable of
>>>> self-sustaining life.
>>>> * The fact that one may be incapable of self-sustaining life does
>>>> not negate or invalidate one's essential character as a LIVING
>>>> HUMAN BEING.
>>>> * The fact that one may be less capable than another of performing
>>>> certain acts, ranging from cognition to ambulation, due to birth
>>>> defect, accident, or illness, does not negate or invalidate their
>>>> essential character as a LIVING HUMAN BEING.
>>>> * Human beings are intrinsically significant and of value, not only
>>>> to other human beings, but even more importantly, to God.
>>>> * Therefore, the taking of any human life is an act of great import
>>>> and not to be taken lightly.
>>>> * There are very limited circumstances when the taking of human
>>>> life is allowed: self-defense and war.
>>>> * The taking of a human life for the convenience of another is
>>>> immoral as it reduces the victim to the role of commodity for the
>>>> pleasure of another and denies their essential worth as a human being.
>>>> * Abortion, from sacrificing a fertilized egg for its stem cells,
>>>> to "partial birth abortion", is the taking of a HUMAN LIFE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill -
>>>
>>> One thing that is problematic about your argument is the
>>> apparently innocuous little word "a" as in "a living human being."
>>> The reason that that's questionable is that for a few days after
>>> conception (I will let the embryologists try to say just when) it is
>>> possible for the conceptus to develop into _two_ - or even more -
>>> living human beings. Thus one cannot speak unambiguously of _a_
>>> human being at such early stages of development. This suggests that
>>> one can take a strong position against abortion of a fetus at later
>>> stages of development and still hold consistently that destruction
>>> of a conceptus at very early stages, for stem cell research or other
>>> reasons, may be legitimate.
>>>
>>> Shalom
>>> George
>>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --Bill Yates
>> --mailto:billyates@billyates.com
>> --http://www.billyates.com
>> --CD Reviewer, Webmaster, Roots66.com
>> --Editor, WorldVillage.com's Believer's Weekly
>> --Theron Services: Web Design, Editing, Writing
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 14 01:39:50 2004