• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If You Are Pro-Choice On Abortion, You Should Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Troodon Roar said:
Well, you and I can't think or feel when we are anesthetized. Do you propose it should be legal to kill us then? Also, you'd be surprised at the amount of evidence accumulating lately indicating that single-celled organisms, and other organisms lacking brains or nervous systems, might, in fact, be able to think and feel. For example, the Slime Mold Physarum polycephalum has been shown to be able to learn in laboratory experiments. And several scientific publications have speculated about the possibility of single-celled organisms being conscious and sentient, including by such renowned scientists as Lynn Margulis, who first showed that mitochondria were likely bacteria that invaded larger eukaryotic cells and got incorporated into them, and bacterial geneticist James A. Shapiro.
Click to expand...

nah since we can think and fell normally can an an embryo do it at all?
 
The obtaining of embryonic stem cells from embryos is no longer necessary for medicine, anyways. For the past decade, Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells have existed, thanks to the pioneering efforts of researcher Shinyo Yamanaka, who used a virus as a vector to insert the four pluripotency factors Sox2, Klf4, C-Myc, and Oct4 into dermal fibroblasts, causing them to dedifferentiate back into pluripotent cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst-stage embryos.

In addition, a spate of studies has shown that spermatogonial stem cells, the cells in the testes that differentiate into spermatocytes, then spermatids, then spermatozoa, or sperm cells, have the ability to give rise to pluripotent cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells in vitro.

So there are at least two alternative sources of cells with the same level of potency (pluripotent) as embryonic stem cells (and, thus, just as useful for medicine), not to mention the myriad forms of adult stem cells that are less potent (multipotent), but are still as medically useful as embryonic stem cells, if not more so, in certain situations (if a patient needs specific tissues, it is easier to make it out of multipotent adult stem cells, which are already somewhat on the way, than going through the arduous process of coaxing pluripotent embryonic stem cells to differentiate into said tissues).
 
George W. Bush banned embryonic stem cell research in the U.S., if I recall correctly, for all the usual cockamamy pro-life reasons.

They use umbilical cords and bone marrow now instead. There are also some newer techniques which can revert differentiated cells in the body back into stem cells. So there are many ways to obtain stem cells now.

That said, before these advances, I 100% supported using embryonic stem cells for research. It's just too important of an area of medical science to overlook. Embryos miscarry so much of the time and are so undeveloped that I don't really care about their rights. They are insignificant clumps of cells in the grand scheme. If someone wants to donate their embryo(s) for scientific research then I'm cool with that.

Regrowing organs and neural tissue, prolonging and saving lives... way more important than these ethical debates. We're talking clumps of cells in a test tube that will never become anything because there will never be implantation. No problem here.
 
Troodon Roar said:
I have noticed that one of the most common pro-choice arguments, and one of the ones that I agree with the most, is the argument that no one has the right to force someone else to use their body to keep them alive, even if, without it, the beneficiary would die. The common analogy of forced organ donation not being enforced by governments is often utilized as an analogy for visualizing why continued gestation should not be forced upon pregnant individuals by governments. This argument is exemplified by Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist Metaphor.

Now, here's the exquisite twist: In embryonic stem cell research, an embryo (which, in this case, is outside of anyone else's body, so that particular part of the situation is taken care of) not only has its bodily autonomy violated, but is, in fact, KILLED, in the process of having some of its (stem) cells removed to keep another person (a patient with a terminal illness) alive. This is exactly like forced organ donation, being forced (stem) cell donation, except that it is even worse, because it results in the death of the embryo that is being forced to donate its (stem) cells. In other words, ESCR is the equivalent of forcing a pregnant woman to remain pregnant in order to preserve the life of her zygote, embryo, or fetus, with the pregnant woman being killed in the process. Surely, this is the kind of horror story that all pro-choicers would be up in arms about.

Yet, if they are truly pro-choice, and pro-choice for everyone, not just those older than a certain age or past a certain developmental stage, pro-choicers ought to be ardent opponents of legalized embryo-killing stem cell harvesting.

Unless they are not truly pro-choice, as they claim, after all, but are really just ageists using choice as a veneer to masquerade their true motivations: lethal age discrimination motivated by postnatal supremacist prejudice.

Indeed, my current position is that I think abortion should be legal (although I am personally opposed to it, meaning that I think it is wrong, personally, and would choose not to have one if I were to ever become gravid, or pregnant), but I think killing of any antenatal individual when it is outside of someone else's body should be illegal. This would include destroying embryos after in vitro fertilization (IVF), in addition to destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Both of these practices ought to be legally recognized as murder.
Click to expand...

Well, there's two ways to look at being pro-choice.

The first way is, as you say, the inviolability of a person's body. This argument stands no matter whether a ZEF is a person or not. This is personally what my pro-choice argument usually hinges on.

But the second is the scientific conclusion of what a person is -- or even what a living organism is. An embryo simply doesn't qualify, by any measure. It has no brain, it has no stable body, and it has no sustaining ability.

The latter argument is what makes stem cell research basically open-and-shut to a lot of people. Embryos aren't functional organisms.

Even fully formed humans are declared clinically dead and sometimes used for organs if their brain dies, but the rest of their body is still being maintained on life support. The core of what allows them to function as an independent being is dead, and therefore so are they.

Embryos don't have anything like that to begin with. Therefore, if you are a pro-choicer who accepts both arguments, there is no conflict with using embryos for research.
 
Troodon Roar said:
The obtaining of embryonic stem cells from embryos is no longer necessary for medicine, anyways. For the past decade, Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells have existed, thanks to the pioneering efforts of researcher Shinyo Yamanaka, who used a virus as a vector to insert the four pluripotency factors Sox2, Klf4, C-Myc, and Oct4 into dermal fibroblasts, causing them to dedifferentiate back into pluripotent cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst-stage embryos.

In addition, a spate of studies has shown that spermatogonial stem cells, the cells in the testes that differentiate into spermatocytes, then spermatids, then spermatozoa, or sperm cells, have the ability to give rise to pluripotent cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells in vitro.

So there are at least two alternative sources of cells with the same level of potency (pluripotent) as embryonic stem cells (and, thus, just as useful for medicine), not to mention the myriad forms of adult stem cells that are less potent (multipotent), but are still as medically useful as embryonic stem cells, if not more so, in certain situations (if a patient needs specific tissues, it is easier to make it out of multipotent adult stem cells, which are already somewhat on the way, than going through the arduous process of coaxing pluripotent embryonic stem cells to differentiate into said tissues).
Click to expand...

if people want to use something else fine if not also fine
 
Troodon Roar said:
The obtaining of embryonic stem cells from embryos is no longer necessary for medicine, anyways. For the past decade, Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells have existed, thanks to the pioneering efforts of researcher Shinyo Yamanaka, who used a virus as a vector to insert the four pluripotency factors Sox2, Klf4, C-Myc, and Oct4 into dermal fibroblasts, causing them to dedifferentiate back into pluripotent cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst-stage embryos.

In addition, a spate of studies has shown that spermatogonial stem cells, the cells in the testes that differentiate into spermatocytes, then spermatids, then spermatozoa, or sperm cells, have the ability to give rise to pluripotent cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells in vitro.

So there are at least two alternative sources of cells with the same level of potency (pluripotent) as embryonic stem cells (and, thus, just as useful for medicine), not to mention the myriad forms of adult stem cells that are less potent (multipotent), but are still as medically useful as embryonic stem cells, if not more so, in certain situations (if a patient needs specific tissues, it is easier to make it out of multipotent adult stem cells, which are already somewhat on the way, than going through the arduous process of coaxing pluripotent embryonic stem cells to differentiate into said tissues).
Click to expand...

Although what you've said here probably won't matter to many, I'd be grateful if you'd post some links in support of your claims.
 
Data, data, data

nota bene said:
Although what you've said here probably won't matter to many, I'd be grateful if you'd post some links in support of your claims.
Click to expand...

Here's one - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell :

"Induced pluripotent stem cells[edit]

Main article: Induced pluripotent stem cell

"The iPSC technology was pioneered by Shinya Yamanaka’s lab in Kyoto, Japan, who showed in 2006 that the introduction of four specific genes encoding transcription factors could convert adult cells into pluripotent stem cells.[58] He was awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize along with Sir John Gurdon "for the discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent." [59]

"In 2007 it was shown that pluripotent stem cells highly similar to embryonic stem cells can be generated by the delivery of three genes (Oct4, Sox2, and Klf4) to differentiated cells.[60] The delivery of these genes "reprograms" differentiated cells into pluripotent stem cells, allowing for the generation of pluripotent stem cells without the embryo. Because ethical concerns regarding embryonic stem cells typically are about their derivation from terminated embryos, it is believed that reprogramming to these "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS cells) may be less controversial. Both human and mouse cells can be reprogrammed by this methodology, generating both human pluripotent stem cells and mouse pluripotent stem cells without an embryo.[61]
This may enable the generation of patient specific ES cell lines that could potentially be used for cell replacement therapies. In addition, this will allow the generation of ES cell lines from patients with a variety of genetic diseases and will provide invaluable models to study those diseases.

"However, as a first indication that the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS) cell technology can in rapid succession lead to new cures, it was used by a research team headed by Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to cure mice of sickle cell anemia, as reported by Science journal's online edition on December 6, 2007.[62][63]

"On January 16, 2008, a California-based company, Stemagen, announced that they had created the first mature cloned human embryos from single skin cells taken from adults. These embryos can be harvested for patient matching embryonic stem cells.[64]"

Fascinating research. I'll have to look into it more. & there's more general information & sources & etc. @ the URL.
 
Troodon Roar said:
I'm trying to point out that pro-life and pro-choice can both agree on this issue (opposing embryonic stem cell research). I thought it would be an opportunity for both sides to agree, for once.
Click to expand...

This only works on the premise that the fetus is a human being with all the same rights as a living child. However, if someone subscribed to that notion they are going to be pro-life already. Your argument is self-defeating as a result, and will not convince anyone.
 
Troodon Roar said:
No, I think killing is okay for only two reasons: Food and Defense. Which is why I think abortion to save the pregnant individual's life is morally permissible, as well as eating meat. And even if I were a vegetarian, I would apply my same views to plants, considering them to have rights, as well, so it would not resolve my problem.
Click to expand...

Plants do not have rights. Animals do not have rights. Embryos do not have rights. Rights can only assigned to beings that can act morally.

Does that clear it up for you?
 
Last edited:
I reject this idea that "If I believe X then I must/should believe Y." Logic and consistence might be great in theory, but we all have to live in the real world where people can and do believe things that are illogical and inconsistent.

For example, this is like me arguing that if a person is pro-life, then that person should also be against the death penalty. I can't imagine that argument has won over a single person in history. And I can't imagine that your argument here will win anyone over either. I am pro-choice and pro stem cell research, and I don't feel the slightest twinge of cognitive dissonance.
 
eselement said:
I reject this idea that "If I believe X then I must/should believe Y." Logic and consistence might be great in theory, but we all have to live in the real world where people can and do believe things that are illogical and inconsistent.

For example, this is like me arguing that if a person is pro-life, then that person should also be against the death penalty. I can't imagine that argument has won over a single person in history. And I can't imagine that your argument here will win anyone over either. I am pro-choice and pro stem cell research, and I don't feel the slightest twinge of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

There is no comparison between an innocent whose life is extinguished and a killer who is executed, but I nevertheless am pro-life and anti-death penalty, and, like you, experience no cognitive dissonance at all.
 
Troodon Roar said:
I have noticed that one of the most common pro-choice arguments, and one of the ones that I agree with the most, is the argument that no one has the right to force someone else to use their body to keep them alive, even if, without it, the beneficiary would die. The common analogy of forced organ donation not being enforced by governments is often utilized as an analogy for visualizing why continued gestation should not be forced upon pregnant individuals by governments. This argument is exemplified by Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist Metaphor.

Now, here's the exquisite twist: In embryonic stem cell research, an embryo (which, in this case, is outside of anyone else's body, so that particular part of the situation is taken care of) not only has its bodily autonomy violated, but is, in fact, KILLED, in the process of having some of its (stem) cells removed to keep another person (a patient with a terminal illness) alive. This is exactly like forced organ donation, being forced (stem) cell donation, except that it is even worse, because it results in the death of the embryo that is being forced to donate its (stem) cells. In other words, ESCR is the equivalent of forcing a pregnant woman to remain pregnant in order to preserve the life of her zygote, embryo, or fetus, with the pregnant woman being killed in the process. Surely, this is the kind of horror story that all pro-choicers would be up in arms about.

Yet, if they are truly pro-choice, and pro-choice for everyone, not just those older than a certain age or past a certain developmental stage, pro-choicers ought to be ardent opponents of legalized embryo-killing stem cell harvesting.

Unless they are not truly pro-choice, as they claim, after all, but are really just ageists using choice as a veneer to masquerade their true motivations: lethal age discrimination motivated by postnatal supremacist prejudice.

Indeed, my current position is that I think abortion should be legal (although I am personally opposed to it, meaning that I think it is wrong, personally, and would choose not to have one if I were to ever become gravid, or pregnant), but I think killing of any antenatal individual when it is outside of someone else's body should be illegal. This would include destroying embryos after in vitro fertilization (IVF), in addition to destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Both of these practices ought to be legally recognized as murder.
Click to expand...

Exasperation.jpg
 
Troodon Roar said:
I have noticed that one of the most common pro-choice arguments, and one of the ones that I agree with the most, is the argument that no one has the right to force someone else to use their body to keep them alive, even if, without it, the beneficiary would die. The common analogy of forced organ donation not being enforced by governments is often utilized as an analogy for visualizing why continued gestation should not be forced upon pregnant individuals by governments. This argument is exemplified by Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist Metaphor.

Now, here's the exquisite twist: In embryonic stem cell research, an embryo (which, in this case, is outside of anyone else's body, so that particular part of the situation is taken care of) not only has its bodily autonomy violated, but is, in fact, KILLED, in the process of having some of its (stem) cells removed to keep another person (a patient with a terminal illness) alive. This is exactly like forced organ donation, being forced (stem) cell donation, except that it is even worse, because it results in the death of the embryo that is being forced to donate its (stem) cells. In other words, ESCR is the equivalent of forcing a pregnant woman to remain pregnant in order to preserve the life of her zygote, embryo, or fetus, with the pregnant woman being killed in the process. Surely, this is the kind of horror story that all pro-choicers would be up in arms about.

Yet, if they are truly pro-choice, and pro-choice for everyone, not just those older than a certain age or past a certain developmental stage, pro-choicers ought to be ardent opponents of legalized embryo-killing stem cell harvesting.

Unless they are not truly pro-choice, as they claim, after all, but are really just ageists using choice as a veneer to masquerade their true motivations: lethal age discrimination motivated by postnatal supremacist prejudice.

Indeed, my current position is that I think abortion should be legal (although I am personally opposed to it, meaning that I think it is wrong, personally, and would choose not to have one if I were to ever become gravid, or pregnant), but I think killing of any antenatal individual when it is outside of someone else's body should be illegal. This would include destroying embryos after in vitro fertilization (IVF), in addition to destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Both of these practices ought to be legally recognized as murder.
Click to expand...

Lets just start with this...

You are wrong.. the embryo is not killed in the process of having some of its stem cells removed to keep another person alive.

the embryo is already dead for a variety of other reasons.. and the stem cells are being salvaged from the body. and then used for research and treatments that will keep other people alive and actually will reduce the amount of suffering and death and may actual prevent many embryonic deaths in the future.
 
jaeger19 said:
Lets just start with this...

You are wrong.. the embryo is not killed in the process of having some of its stem cells removed to keep another person alive.

the embryo is already dead for a variety of other reasons.. and the stem cells are being salvaged from the body. and then used for research and treatments that will keep other people alive and actually will reduce the amount of suffering and death and may actual prevent many embryonic deaths in the future.
Click to expand...

Really? An embryo is not killed by having some of its stem cells removed? I would appreciate it if you could show me a link for this assertion, because it flies in the face of all that I know. If an embryo is not killed by it, then why would it be such a controversial political issue?
 
Troodon Roar said:
Really? An embryo is not killed by having some of its stem cells removed? I would appreciate it if you could show me a link for this assertion, because it flies in the face of all that I know. If an embryo is not killed by it, then why would it be such a controversial political issue?
Click to expand...

What? Some institutions are using “LIVE” embryos to get stem cells? Are they frozen embryos or right out of the womb?

How old are the embryos - as a rule?

I didn’t think harvesting stem cells were required from embryos anymore? :shrug:
 
FutureIncoming said:
APPARENTLY YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER ABORTION OPPONENT IGNORANT OF RELEVANT FACTS ABOUT "HUMAN LIFE". Perhaps if you read this, you might become educated enough to know better than to spout worthless blather.
Click to expand...

Reading that has not had that impact upon you as of yet apparently.
 
Removable Mind said:
What? Some institutions are using “LIVE” embryos to get stem cells? Are they frozen embryos or right out of the womb?

How old are the embryos - as a rule?

I didn’t think harvesting stem cells were required from embryos anymore? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I made that point earlier in this thread. Now that alternative sources of stem cells are readily available, there is really no justification for the killing of embryos in vitro to remain legal.
 
Fenton Lum said:
Reading that has not had that impact upon you as of yet apparently.
Click to expand...

It hasn't. The article correctly points out that the only difference between a zygote and a cuticle cell is its epigenetic state -- which genes are expressed. I have no qualms with this portion. It then goes on to minimize the significance of this difference. This very difference is, indeed, what I base my view that a zygote should be granted personhood, but any other single cell from a multicellular organism shouldn't, on. The zygote is totipotent -- the stemmest of the stem cells, able to differentiate into any tissue type, prenatal or postnatal, and being able to coordinate this differentiation temporally and spatially. This ability allows it to behave in an integrated organismal manner, showing an ontological continuity between its unicellular self and its multicellular successor. No other cell from a multicellular organism is both totipotent and is able to organize its developmental program in time and space, as is the zygote. Therefore, this justifies drawing a demarcation between a zygote, which is a whole organism in and of itself, and any other single cell from a multicellular organism, which is a part of an organism.
 
Troodon Roar said:
I have noticed that one of the most common pro-choice arguments, and one of the ones that I agree with the most, is the argument that no one has the right to force someone else to use their body to keep them alive, even if, without it, the beneficiary would die. The common analogy of forced organ donation not being enforced by governments is often utilized as an analogy for visualizing why continued gestation should not be forced upon pregnant individuals by governments. This argument is exemplified by Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist Metaphor.

Now, here's the exquisite twist: In embryonic stem cell research, an embryo (which, in this case, is outside of anyone else's body, so that particular part of the situation is taken care of) not only has its bodily autonomy violated, but is, in fact, KILLED, in the process of having some of its (stem) cells removed to keep another person (a patient with a terminal illness) alive. This is exactly like forced organ donation, being forced (stem) cell donation, except that it is even worse, because it results in the death of the embryo that is being forced to donate its (stem) cells. In other words, ESCR is the equivalent of forcing a pregnant woman to remain pregnant in order to preserve the life of her zygote, embryo, or fetus, with the pregnant woman being killed in the process. Surely, this is the kind of horror story that all pro-choicers would be up in arms about.

Yet, if they are truly pro-choice, and pro-choice for everyone, not just those older than a certain age or past a certain developmental stage, pro-choicers ought to be ardent opponents of legalized embryo-killing stem cell harvesting.

Unless they are not truly pro-choice, as they claim, after all, but are really just ageists using choice as a veneer to masquerade their true motivations: lethal age discrimination motivated by postnatal supremacist prejudice.

Indeed, my current position is that I think abortion should be legal (although I am personally opposed to it, meaning that I think it is wrong, personally, and would choose not to have one if I were to ever become gravid, or pregnant), but I think killing of any antenatal individual when it is outside of someone else's body should be illegal. This would include destroying embryos after in vitro fertilization (IVF), in addition to destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Both of these practices ought to be legally recognized as murder.
Click to expand...

LMAO no
that actually makes no sense at all in any LOGICAL way. Thanks for the life though.
 
Troodon Roar said:
It hasn't. The article correctly points out that the only difference between a zygote and a cuticle cell is its epigenetic state -- which genes are expressed. I have no qualms with this portion. It then goes on to minimize the significance of this difference. This very difference is, indeed, what I base my view that a zygote should be granted personhood, but any other single cell from a multicellular organism shouldn't, on. The zygote is totipotent -- the stemmest of the stem cells, able to differentiate into any tissue type, prenatal or postnatal, and being able to coordinate this differentiation temporally and spatially. This ability allows it to behave in an integrated organismal manner, showing an ontological continuity between its unicellular self and its multicellular successor. No other cell from a multicellular organism is both totipotent and is able to organize its developmental program in time and space, as is the zygote. Therefore, this justifies drawing a demarcation between a zygote, which is a whole organism in and of itself, and any other single cell from a multicellular organism, which is a part of an organism.
Click to expand...

When we get around to recognizing all those already here as equal in personhood, I'll entertain the notion, but I still doubt I will go along with the corporate state being involved in anyone's personal decision relative to the topic.
 
Fenton Lum said:
Reading that has not had that impact upon you as of yet apparently.
Click to expand...
I WROTE IT. The purpose of that document was to show just how varied are things that can be called "human life", most of which neither need nor receive any rights (like hydatidiform moles and cuticle cells and cancer cells and unborn humans), simply because most folks know better than to swallow Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy. Only persons deserve rights. Human biology is totally irrelevant to that conclusion.
 
Troodon Roar said:
It hasn't. The article correctly points out that the only difference between a zygote and a cuticle cell is its epigenetic state -- which genes are expressed. I have no qualms with this portion. It then goes on to minimize the significance of this difference. This very difference is, indeed, what I base my view that a zygote should be granted personhood, but any other single cell from a multicellular organism shouldn't, on. The zygote is totipotent -- the stemmest of the stem cells, able to differentiate into any tissue type, prenatal or postnatal, and being able to coordinate this differentiation temporally and spatially. This ability allows it to behave in an integrated organismal manner, showing an ontological continuity between its unicellular self and its multicellular successor. No other cell from a multicellular organism is both totipotent and is able to organize its developmental program in time and space, as is the zygote. Therefore, this justifies drawing a demarcation between a zygote, which is a whole organism in and of itself, and any other single cell from a multicellular organism, which is a part of an organism.
Click to expand...
THEN YOU DIDN"T READ THE DOCUMENT WELL ENOUGH. Because any cell at all that has the full set of human DNA has the potential to act like a zygote. A zygote might be right-now totipotent, but all those other cells have the potential to be totipotent. (proved by cloning research). Furthermore, it is just as impossible for a zygote to fulfill its potential without Active External Help, as it is impossible for any of those other cells to fulfill their potential without Active External Help. Therefore all your blather amounts to making a mountain out of a mole-hill; no zygote is inherently superior to any other eukaryote cell.
 
FutureIncoming said:
THEN YOU DIDN"T READ THE DOCUMENT WELL ENOUGH. Because any cell at all that has the full set of human DNA has the potential to act like a zygote. A zygote might be right-now totipotent, but all those other cells have the potential to be totipotent. (proved by cloning research). Furthermore, it is just as impossible for a zygote to fulfill its potential without Active External Help, as it is impossible for any of those other cells to fulfill their potential without Active External Help. Therefore all your blather amounts to making a mountain out of a mole-hill; no zygote is inherently superior to any other eukaryote cell.
Click to expand...

My argument is not based on the potentiality of the zygote. Rather, it is based on the present status of the zygote. All of those other cells that, yes, can be reprogrammed to totipotency, are only potential persons, in my view. I think I have not gotten my point across clearly enough. What bestows personhood upon the zygote is not its potential to differentiate into all other cell types, as you seem to think my argument was, but, rather, that, by dint of possessing this potential, long before it fulfills this potential by differentiating into those aforesaid cell types, it behaves in a manner oriented towards that differentiation; hence, in the zygote, its potentiality becomes an actuality. In other words, its potential has earmarked its present status, so that its present properties bear the hallmarks and the insignia of its potential. Another cell that has the potential to be totipotent, but is not yet, can be said to truly possess only potential to differentiate, without that potential being manifested in its present status as an actual, current property of it, unlike the zygote.
 
It's a subtle distinction, but it's there. It's the distinction between potentialities that are mere potentialities, and potentialities that are also actual, present properties, as well.
 
Troodon Roar said:
It's a subtle distinction, but it's there. It's the distinction between potentialities that are mere potentialities, and potentialities that are also actual, present properties, as well.
Click to expand...

And why does that distinction make the least bit of difference in the legal status of the unborn?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom