Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
I think the question of when a human inherits human rights is a very difficult thing to answer. In my view its why abortion (and by extension stem cells) are rightfully heavily debated. Any time after conception (the first time you have a unique human's DNA) you have to think carefully about the rights of the life at stake. On the other side of the equation though, nothing with a countable number of cells is sentient, human or not. You could very easily argue that someone that isn't sentient isn't yet entitled to human rights. Obviously the further along the fetus is, the harder it is to make that argument. I don't know the exact point that a developing baby becomes sentient. I do believe that the point when stem cells are taken is well before that though. Doing anything with humans after conception is distasteful to me, but in the case of stem cells where theres so much potential for good, using a minimum amount of not-yet-sentient humans is OK with me.To touch on Andy's question for a second: I've never been a fan of slippery slope arguments. We should be able to take each case individually on its own merits and make good decisions. We just need to define the box of people who have human rights and stick with it. Using my criteria: Terminal patients are still sentient and would still have human rights. (if they chose to receive experimental medications thats another matter) Elderly people are obviously still sentient people with their own rights. Since people on death row have done things to specifically lose their human rights, I'm with you that that might not be such a bad idea. ...but thats probably best left to a new thread =]
I think the question of when a human inherits human rights is a very difficult thing to answer. In my view its why abortion (and by extension stem cells) are rightfully heavily debated.
Any time after conception (the first time you have a unique human's DNA) you have to think carefully about the rights of the life at stake. On the other side of the equation though, nothing with a countable number of cells is sentient, human or not. You could very easily argue that someone that isn't sentient isn't yet entitled to human rights. Obviously the further along the fetus is, the harder it is to make that argument.
I don't know the exact point that a developing baby becomes sentient. I do believe that the point when stem cells are taken is well before that though.
Doing anything with humans after conception is distasteful to me, but in the case of stem cells where theres so much potential for good, using a minimum amount of not-yet-sentient humans is OK with me.
To touch on Andy's question for a second: I've never been a fan of slippery slope arguments. We should be able to take each case individually on its own merits and make good decisions. We just need to define the box of people who have human rights and stick with it. Using my criteria: Terminal patients are still sentient and would still have human rights. (if they chose to receive experimental medications thats another matter) Elderly people are obviously still sentient people with their own rights. Since people on death row have done things to specifically lose their human rights, I'm with you that that might not be such a bad idea. ...but thats probably best left to a new thread =]
