An excerpt from a NY Times editorial supporting the expansion of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research (my comments in italics):
"Therapeutic cloning involves the creation of embryos genetically matched to patients with specific diseases so that scientists can extract their stem cells and then study how the diseases develop and how best to treat them. The microscopic entities used in these studies may be called embryos but they have none of the attributes of humanity and, sitting outside the womb, no chance of developing into babies. "
None of the attributes of humanity? These embryos exhibit all the attributes of humanity at the embryonic stage of human development. By the Times' own admission, the embryos in question are clones, genetically matched to human patients. So how can they turn around and say that they have none of the attributes of humanity? To assert both that the embryos are human clones and that they are void of any of the attributes of humanity is to assert a contradiction.
What the editors really mean is that human embryos don't look like more mature humans. But this is no justification for killing them.
2 comments:
no chance of developing into babies
More specious reasoning, tacked on at the end, akin to the patricide asking for mercy because of his status as an orphan.
I take it that the Times meant that the embryo has none of the organ systems characteristic of adults. What relevance this might have is of course a live issue. Some hold that, since an embryo has no nervous system and thus absolutely no capacity for consciousness, it matters less, perhaps much less, than an adult.
There's no contradiction in the Times. Just interpret what they say with a little charity.
Post a Comment