On hiatus

Thursday, January 11, 2007

The Matrix: Preying on Fields of Ignorance

The House of Representatives is apparently passing a bill that would authorize federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.

Let’s recap, in brief.

A human embryo is created. It has the potential to turn into a stem cell. To do this would destroy the embryo, necessarily. Once the embryo is a stem cell, research can be done which may save future lives. The embryo, and the potential for life therein, are destroyed.

That apparently no one thinks this is precisely what happened in the Matrix is beyond me. Fields of people are subdued and robbed of their lives so that machines can use their bodies for energy. Doesn’t that sound a whole lot like embryonic stem cell research?

I’d suggest that no reasonable person wants America to turn into the Matrix.

The only counterargument I’ve heard is that the embryos would be discarded with or without embryonic stem cell research. That takes this discarding process for granted. Why can’t we think critically about that, also? Why should that practice continue?

It’s not as if embryos are our sole source of future stem cells. Amniotic fluid contains the same scientific potential as do embryos. And, while not as apparent in scientific promise, there are adult sources of stem cells that don’t turn us into fields of future body parts.

Ends do not justify means. A wrong can never be justified. If we value human life, this practice must end.

3 Comments:

Blogger Adam said...

To me, the idea that we must preserve every single embryo because it could become a human life, maybe, if a bunch of other stuff happened, is akin to wanting to prohibit masturbation because is wastes sperm that could possibly, maybe, probably not, end up eventually turning into a person. No offense, but it strikes me as just silly ...

7:29 PM

 
Blogger Lyons said...

It all depends on where you draw the line on where life begins, or at least where rights are owed.

To me, sperm is a bunch of cells. Powerful and unique, yes, but without an egg it stops there. Sperm cells are owed no more unique rights than blood cells, for instance.

Sperm with egg, well, now we're talking about at the very least a unique genetic code that has never previously existed and probably never will. I would add to that the notion that we have the beginnings of life itself.

So yes, if in fact I put both in the same camp it would be silly. Since I can justify a line between the two, I still think I'm on terra firma.

If one wanted to put the line elsewhere further down the path of human development -- at implantation or even birth -- I think there's a heightened burden to justify a quasi-discrimination against beings who remain earlier on the developmental chain.

11:06 AM

 
Blogger Adam said...

Fair enough. I guess I remain unconvinved that a "unique genetic code" has rights. My toenail has a unique genetic code, but I don't think I'm committing a sin by clipping it.

4:27 PM

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home