(11-11-2012, 12:12 AM)Taem Wrote: Having said all that, I should not that my argument is not against you Jester, but against what your statement represents and how it can be misappropriated:
Paraphrase Wrote:We are not "alive" until we are "born"
I still feel in cases where a parent intentionally has another child to give their ailing child their newborns organs, giving that newborn a possibly crappier life or even chance of death, has not been adequately touched on by you, and hence this line of logic could be used against your statement.
As well as the theory of human cloning, although I think you and Kath are correct that organ growing will probably supplant any possible cloning efforts in the near future. Nonetheless, it's an argument on semantics that breeches your concept of being alive when your clone is grown in a tube. Abuse absconds morality (in theory). This is what I was arguing and why I feel your statement does not stand up to my points of criticism.
I'm sorry, are you arguing against me? Or arguing against some misappropriation of what I'm saying that directly contradicts what I've actually said? You seem to be saying both...
To be abundantly clear: to be ALIVE is not the same as to have HUMAN RIGHTS. To be BORN is not the same as to be ALIVE. If anyone is paraphrasing me that way, then they've got my argument wrong, and I couldn't care less what their interpretation implies.
I don't believe that using yourself as an incubator to grow a fetus to save an existing child is wrong, no, although the impracticality of it boggles the mind. Nor do I believe that using a lab to do so is automatically wrong. One could, however, legislate against such things without requiring any change of stance on abortion.
-Jester