that's what I am attempting to do. However, in my experience religion must be used otherwise the concept of a soul or immortal consciousness cannot be posited. Without such, such arguments are completely without support and fail miserably or worse, are left as arguments based on ignorance.And, so what if those concerns arise from an individual's religious beliefs or otherwise? Scrutinize the concerns themselves rather than impugning some perceived religious zealotry.
Such arguments are not compelling for obvious reasons.
but I'm confused on why you focus attention on ESCR and not all subsidies of scientific research. That is I hear different arguments:I am not pretending that my judgment on the value or feasibility of such research. I am, though, exercising my judgment relative to the appropriateness of using fed taxpayer dollars to subsidize ESCR. That's not an issue that the scientific experts have any particular authority on.
1) Gov't should not subsidize any scientific research, period.
2) Gov't should not subsidze ESCR research because there exist valid moral objections to it.
3) Gov't should not subsidize ESCR because I don't think its worthwhile even if the appropriators disagree with me(moral arguments aside).
I believe you are #2 but occasionally I feel like #1 and #3 appear in your arguments. Am I right or wrong?
but only because they feel like the use of those cells kills a person that would have otherwise become a full person which is exactly the debate about abortion. That is, people object to destroying an acorn because it could become an oak tree.Um, I think you're conflating abortion and ESCR here. To my knowledge, those participating in the ESCR debate don't rely on any time measurement. It's the type and nature of the cells involved and the implications drawn from the use of those cells, err, embryoes.
did you mean to say you agree????Ad I don't agree that morals can be derived from religious beliefs.
this seems to contradict with your previous statement? I'm confused.However, religion is not the onyl source of moral and ethical considerations
which begs the question "when does human life become important and when does it cease to be important?" You left an unbounded assertion.I find it immoral because it involves the destruction of human life for scientific research,
I figured such. But if you answer the above question we can delve further into the issue.I find it morally repugnant to consider a human embryo as simply a collection of cells that have no instrinsic value and, therefore, should be available to do with as we please,
we shall see if the premises are:I have presented a logically coherent argument that relies on facts and knowledge.
1) Consistent with the conclusion
2) Compelling enough such that they should supercede the alternative conclusions of others.
No. I believe they all do.So, children with physical deformities or mental defects have no right to life? Death row inmates have no right to life?
No.I offered up eugenics earlier as another example where ethical and moral considerations affected fed policy regarding eugenics. Do you also believe that humans born without favored genetic characteristics have no right to life?
I argue that being "human" and/or having human DNA has nothing to do with it. What matters is self-awareness, cogito ergo sum. (Note: one does not have to acknowledge ones self-awareness to be self-aware much like one does not have to understand how eyes function to see; one simply does because they are capable of such)This is curious, your right to life consideration. What basis do you use to conclude that some humans have a right to life while others do not?
I most definitely believe ethical and moral considerations are important. I just have yet to encounter any sound moral or ethical argument against banning ESCR and/or abortion for all. In my experience it should remain a choice, not a requirement or a restriction.I was addressing your point which argued that since scientific research is always virtuous then ethical and moral considerations have no place at the table. At least that is how I understood your comment.