I would really like to take this "human rights" idea one step farther. One commenter, healthy lungs, brought up a great point. What does "human rights" mean? In this context, I am referring to not only the basic human right to live but also the right to choose life or death and the right to speak up. An embryo or a fetus still has the basic human rights, according to Bush, and so it is wrong to abort or destroy and embryo without consent from the "person" with the rights which of course is impossible to get.
However, there is a hole in this idea since there are laws against suicide. If Bush wants to argue that everyone including and embryo has the basic human right to choose life or death then why could an embryo choose but not a living person? Why are there laws against suicide and assisted suicide if a person has basic human rights to a choice? I realize that it is a stretch relating embryonic stem cell research to suicide, but if a human life is a human life that why is it different whether the life is born or unborn when they make the decision to live or die? What do you think? Do the morals stay the say?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow, this is something to really think about. There is a very big loop hole here, and I believe this is not right. Because the embryo is considered human, then this should be tied in with abortion. The whole thing with the suicide is also debateable and ties in with the assisted suicide. The fetus does not a brain that functions enough for it to know whether it wants to live or die, or probably what life even is, so how is this fetus or embryo supposed to chose life or death if it doesn't even know what either is? I think you brought up a very good issue of whether or not a grown human being should be able to kill themselves if they don't want to live. If a fetus can do it, then why can't a human being. I am thinking that Bush is trying to make it so people will look at these embryos as humans but not compare them to anything else.
How much of the brain is developed when these embryos are taken for research? Is it enough to be able to think or remember on their own, or can they only think and remember after birth or a certain stage in the womb? If the brain is not developed at all and the fetus cannot think on its own, then someone else has to do the thinking for them. So who is it that does this thinking? Doctors, Mothers, Fathers, Politics...
The difference between an embryo being able to choose life or death and a grown human is obviously their ability to analyze and weigh the question. My question however is, "How would a grown human being be prevented from taking their life?" Is there really an effective way to prohibit the act? Both the embryo and a grown human being have access to a means of choosing and inflicting death. The difference in my opinion is that the choice in the case of the embryo can be effectively regulated.
Healthy lungs and Healthy girl,
I want to thank you for your strong reactions. This is what I was hoping for! I wanted to bring up the relation to suicide because suicide is when a human makes a life or death choice. An embryo can not do this so someone has to make that choice. I can understand Bush wanting to have compassion for these embryos but in reality they do not remember the womb, they don't feel pain or memories. The closest a child will get to remembering anything before birth is through sound. Music the mother played while pregnant or the sound of running water often reminds small children of the sound, the comfort, of the womb. The issues of abortion and embryonic stem cell research are constantly debating who gets to make the choice, who gets to decide life or death. But as a friend of mine says "People shouldn't kill people, so neither should the government" making me wonder, then who? I can not answer this, I can not even pretend to fathom that one answer will satisfy the world but eventually compromises will be made whether we like it or not.
Post a Comment