Monkey Stems, Human Stems
Dec. 3rd, 2001 10:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheYahoo News Story "Monkey Eggs Become Embryos in Experiment
... Is the last line of this new story necessary?
It seems that the newswire stories are often geared toward generating or sustaining controversy about certain subjects. This story seemed to be cruising to a close, on a biological bent. Then, all of a sudden, it skidded into ethical territory.
That last line seems to have been thrown into the story by some editor, to guard against the appearance of bias. "Just because we cover this news story doesn't mean we support what is being reported. *throws guilt-laden verbiage at readers*"
* * *
Personally, I've been reading the news about the parthenogenesis with interest, but without making any moral or ethical discussions. Because, really, it hasn't touched my life yet.
I know the issues are about where life begins, and what constitutes death, intentional death, murder. Where are our lines drawn? When do we slide (back) into barbarianism?
But these are the same questions we've been dealing with for decades--truly, centuries--over the issue of abortion. And my position on that hasn't changed since I was 17. If it's ethically the decision of the woman, because she is the actual life and the embryo is only potential life, then it must be that the embryo in all cases remains only "potential life." Or so some part of me says.
Another part of me points to the fact that since there is no actual life for which we must place primary importance, that means that the embryo is in fact the primary life we must consider, and thus the arguments begin anew on a blank slate.
Part of me is appalled that it's seen as perfectly ethical and okay to experiment with monkey embryos, but not human ones. This double-standard, ethically, is utterly farcical and hypocritical.
Is intelligence alone enough to make a claim for special ontological status for the human embryo?
For me, I have to say no, the same way I say that is not a reason for disallowing abortions. "You could be killing the next Einstein." Oh well. I apologize to the human race for depriving it of some potentiality. But there is plenty already material that we are not utilizing. We think we're keen creatures, but we're bumblers. We've been blundering our way through history for quite some time.
This must be such a cut-and-dried issue for pro-lifers. Their positions are (or at least can be) exactly the same. "Life begins at conception; intentional destruction is murder." For this pro-choicer, the ground beneath my feet is influenced by ethical Teutonic plates.
... Is the last line of this new story necessary?
It seems that the newswire stories are often geared toward generating or sustaining controversy about certain subjects. This story seemed to be cruising to a close, on a biological bent. Then, all of a sudden, it skidded into ethical territory.
That last line seems to have been thrown into the story by some editor, to guard against the appearance of bias. "Just because we cover this news story doesn't mean we support what is being reported. *throws guilt-laden verbiage at readers*"
* * *
Personally, I've been reading the news about the parthenogenesis with interest, but without making any moral or ethical discussions. Because, really, it hasn't touched my life yet.
I know the issues are about where life begins, and what constitutes death, intentional death, murder. Where are our lines drawn? When do we slide (back) into barbarianism?
But these are the same questions we've been dealing with for decades--truly, centuries--over the issue of abortion. And my position on that hasn't changed since I was 17. If it's ethically the decision of the woman, because she is the actual life and the embryo is only potential life, then it must be that the embryo in all cases remains only "potential life." Or so some part of me says.
Another part of me points to the fact that since there is no actual life for which we must place primary importance, that means that the embryo is in fact the primary life we must consider, and thus the arguments begin anew on a blank slate.
Part of me is appalled that it's seen as perfectly ethical and okay to experiment with monkey embryos, but not human ones. This double-standard, ethically, is utterly farcical and hypocritical.
Is intelligence alone enough to make a claim for special ontological status for the human embryo?
For me, I have to say no, the same way I say that is not a reason for disallowing abortions. "You could be killing the next Einstein." Oh well. I apologize to the human race for depriving it of some potentiality. But there is plenty already material that we are not utilizing. We think we're keen creatures, but we're bumblers. We've been blundering our way through history for quite some time.
This must be such a cut-and-dried issue for pro-lifers. Their positions are (or at least can be) exactly the same. "Life begins at conception; intentional destruction is murder." For this pro-choicer, the ground beneath my feet is influenced by ethical Teutonic plates.
(no subject)
Date: 2001-12-03 10:47 am (UTC)Call me a speciest or whatever, but I'd say yes. If it's my choice between a human and an animal, the animal dies without a second thought. We've been doing it for years anyway - we call it food.
(no subject)
Date: 2001-12-03 08:12 pm (UTC)Cannibals called humans food, too, and we made a moral stand against that.
(no subject)
Date: 2001-12-04 10:36 am (UTC)Yup. If a 100 monkey embryos die for a dozen human lives, then it's bedtime for Bonzo.
Cannibals called humans food, too, and we made a moral stand against that.
Like I said, I tend to be biased.