Andrew Alder wrote:

>> If the fundamental issue is the defence of the human then lets have a

>> better definition of “human” than conception.

>

> Amen, Jim. I’d prefer to say “defence of the human individual”. But birth

and > viability both have their problems as well as criteria for the start of

life.

And criteria for the beginning of individuality! How does one define individuality? At some unspecified point in the gestation period? At birth? When the umbilical cord is cut? When breastfeeding stops? When psychological theory asserts a baby learns that their mother is a separate being? When an offspring becomes “independent”? They’re mostly incredibly variable and almost impossible to define anyway.

> Prominent or not, it’s an appallingly cynical piece of propaganda! It’s

> successful all right, it invokes an image that most of us find sickening,

that > of cannibalism, and links it to the issue.

>

> But what is the link? The supposition seems to be that, if you don’t

approve > of it for food, you wouldn’t approve of it for medicine either. This is

> nonsense. Many of us are blood donors but would never condone drinking

human > blood. We applaud kidney transplants but would never approve of eating

human > kidneys.

>

> We could follow this path and look at the characteristics and valid uses

of > global and linear thinking, but I think the point is made. The “delicacy”

> argument is inappropriate reasoning, and unhelpful.

Which brings to mind the argument (and I’m happy to have its faults pointed out)

that stem cell research is perhaps much more akin to organ donation than to abortion. The moral dilemma arises because it’s the parents who give permission, not the embryos themselves.

> To go back to the issue of unwanted embryos, I would suggest that they

have a > similar – but not identical – status to that of a stillborn infant,

I’d disagree, on the premise of “wantedness”. A stillborn child is wanted (mostly) but taken away by circumstances. An embryo that will otherwise be kept for eternity (out of regard for its “living” status) or discarded as superfluous is quite different, I think. Perhaps it’s akin to people on life support machines. They’re people, but without constant application of medical technology and nutrition, they won’t survive. Do we have a right to switch off the life support machine? Do we have a right to unfreeze (and allow to die)

embryos? Maybe the question shouldn’t be “do we have a right to?” but rather “do we have an obligation to?” (just playing devil’s advocate there – I can see the flames coming already).

> and that their use, with parental consent, is acceptable, but that the

> creation of embryos specifically for therapy or research is a very

dangerous > thing.

I think I pretty much agree with this, although I also think it’s a hard line to draw. If that were the policy, would it mean that scientists doing IVF stuff, for instance, would end up creating more potential embryo implants than they do now, simply in order to have more left over for research?

I also want to look at the hypothesis from Nikki’s point of view, which started the discussion, and argue that maybe it’s still not enough. If we only have “leftover” embryos available for research, how does that impact on the people who might benefit from that research?

Plus let me throw in one more issue. We breed animals for research, why not humans? Why not? Because we still operate under the 19th(?) century argument that humans are the ultimate form of life, and therefore to be respected more than other “lower” forms of life (just go back to Andrew’s argument on eating kidneys and drinking blood. We do both those with animals). Whereas in actual fact, we should acknowledge that nature has a certain amount of waste built in, and to attempt to curtail it in humans is arrogant at the least. One tiny example: eastern quolls give birth to about 30 young but only 6 find teats and survive (Nikki will know where I got *that* fact!). Call it survival of the fittest if you like. Call it natural selection. Call it barbaric if you really want to. Whether you see it as nature’s responsibility, or God’s choice, it’s a fact.

Which is all about saying perhaps we hold life, and especially human life, *too* sacred.

> But bad news for aspiring politicians, of course. I have a little game you

> might like to try. Whenever I see someone interviewed, or expressing an

> opinion on a topical issue, I ask, do they really want to solve this? Is

it in > their personal interest for the polarisation and controversy to increase,

or > to decrease?

I like this! I’m going to have a lot of fun with it. Thanks Andrew Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org