Re: [asa] The unexpected burden of IVF

David O's view that because they are potentially people they are people.
I'm not sure the word "people" (or "persons" as used in the constitution) is the best word for bringing clarity to this discussion.??Being a?"person"?seems to imply being conscious, so that consciousness?would be the essential thing and then embryos may be disposable.? But have we really?agreed on that?? Is a person really less of a person during the time that they are temporarily unconscious, say if they get knocked on the head by a baseball?

I prefer to discuss this in terms of "the spectrum of human life."? There is no question that an embryo is a form of life.? And there is no question that it is _human_ life?rather than dolphin life or cat life.? So it is unquestionably a part of the spectrum of life that we call "human life."? I think this formulation gives clarity to the real issue.? The issue is whether or not mankind has the moral authority in this universe to parse up the spectrum of human life, declaring some of its segments to be sacred and others to be disposable.? We can't really find a clear place to parse that spectrum, and even if we could, the issue is whether or not we have the moral authority to do so.

So I agree with David's conclusion but I would avoid the nebulous and irrelevant term "person".

Phil

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 6 18:52:02 2007