Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
It's not a strawman, I never insist that you said something, actuaclly I said "it sounds like.." and I am only trying to understand your reason for opposing me about human life before birth.
|
Well, this is something you wrote :
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
I like to see you as well to prove that a human embryo is not part of the developement of the human being. If you can prove to me that a human being can skip over the embryonic stage and prove it is not neccessary for or a part of human life then you can start to build your case.
|
Start to build my case? Prove that an embryo is not part of the development? None of this is relevant to any of the ethical points I've argued for earlier in this thread. You seem to have not read my post because you confront me with this and if you had read the post I referred to, you would have known that I used a utilitarian argument which grades an action's morality on the consequences of that action, not whether or not a fetus is human which is, according to utilitarism, morally irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
It's painfully obvious you haven't read my post, either, if you read what I wrote you should know I've mentioned adult stem research. Since I mentioned adult stem research, why would I argue against stem research?
|
What? I don't get this part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
I can not agree with you on that point, they are related, because the researcher would not have the opportunity to research the human cells taken from human fetuses without that act happening in the first place. There was a similar problem this reminds me of that happened in the 19th century:
|
In your example, the fact medical schools paid for bodies makes that a motive for murder. It's causal. The same is not true for fetuses used in stemcell research. The motive for abortion is not to help stemcell research or to benefit economically from the fetuses death. Huge difference!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
That analogy doesn't make sense, why would they cruelly torture a king and then very carefully and reverently perserve him forever by mummifying him?
|
I see you don't know this, but kings, pharaohs and other social elites are not the only ones who get mummified. There are the
incan children mummifications for example or the
self-mummifying Skushinbutsu monks from Japan. Even if you find it unlikely, you could still try and use your imagination to construct a "what if" scenario in your mind
The reason it works as an example is that the death of the mummy does not directly relate to the scientific research conducted on it. The mummy didn't die 3000 years ago so that people could study them today. The same way, fetuses don't die because of stemcell research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
It is the very fact that the scientist and researchers forgets the abortions that makes it unethical.
|
Here you make a moral statement again, but you have no argument to back it. Why is it unethical to forget? So far, despite somewhat lengthy posts, you have not yet provided one single argument as to why stemcell research or even abortions is wrong. You've only stated that it
is. Do you see what I mean?
I used a utilitarian argument to defend my position. It's based on a principle that a moral action is good if it has good consequences. Good consequences lead to pleasure in some form. Bad consequences lead to suffering in some form. Your job as a moral being according to the utilitarian principle is to maximize pleasure or/and reduce suffering. The amount of consideration any living being should recieve depends on its, his or hers ability to feel pleasure or suffering, the ability to be affected by your moral decision.
Although I do believe abortions and the research itself are separate events, I've used a utilitarian argument to defend abortions as well as the research. Defending the research is simple, stemcell research will have groundbreaking positive consequences and can help heal so many ailments both now and in the future. Dead fetuses don't suffer, at least we can't assume they do, so they do not deserve any moral consideration.
When I defended abortions using a utilitarian argument, I wrote that in an abortion, there are potentially two main targets for moral consideration. The mother and the fetus. If she's a healthy, normal human being, we know about the mother's capacity for feeling pleasure or suffering. We know that abortion or not will have immense consequences for her happiness or suffering. The fetus on the other hand is comparatively less capable to experience the consequences of the decision. You then have to prioritize the mother and her happiness/suffering over that of the fetus.
These are ethical arguments explain how and why actions are right or wrong, something that all your posts so far lack. Why is stemcell research wrong? Because God says so? If you want to discuss morals, you should figure out a way to not just say what your views are, but explain them. Aren't your moral beliefs based on anything but "because"?