It was a comment, not an argument refuting what you/whoever said , thus you shouldn't have taken it as such from the first place.
A biased comment, nonetheless
Oh really? It is regarding this topic. It is paving the path for the second point. Now since we all regard human life as something that shouldnt be killed without a good reason, shouldn't we treat the embryo the same thing as well? ( Note : NOW I am argueing ).
I can’t see a brainless blob of cells which never had any desire (and neither has the capacity to have desires) as deserving the same ethical consideration of full-blown person.
2 Points to be made :
a ) Were'nt we all that "blob of cells" once a point of a time? On what basis are you regarding the starting point of human life form as 'not human' ?
Yes we began life as blob of cells. We only became ‘persons’ once we had brains capable of conscious thought (or experiencing external stimulus and giving rise to qualia). We didn’t exist before this, so we had no rights as persons (we weren’t persons to begin with).
b) You described the embryo as a "blob of cells". Well, aren't we all a bigger "blob of cells" atm ?
[UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE MONTH]You are totally out of touch with modern bioethics.[/UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE MONTH]
We’re a blob of cells with a brain capable of conscious thought and giving rise to qualia. It’s a completely different situation. We have hopes, desires, expectations, and we can be afraid, feel pain, pleasure… an embryo in the first months is UNABLE to do anything like this. It’s a non-person, really.
Your argument is the completely nonsensical one, since you couldn't draw the line of when exactly can we begin regarding a human life form as alive or not.
I can draw the line: conscious experience (which requires a brain).
If you argue that the embryo's cells are not regarded human yet because they havent began to specialise to organs and tissues, then you must have regarded anything perior to the 10th week of pregnancy ( 1'st Trimester ) as unalive.
Not “unalive”, but a non-person. Your heart is alive, but it’s not a person.
And I take that from someone who made a sweeping generalisiation about embryos?
This is laughable. Show me how a brainless embryo can feel pain, pleasure or have desires and I’ll say that you’re right. Anything else and you’re just rationalizing.
Dignity? Oh please, I spent a day reading euthanasian articles ( a few days after Terri Schiavo's death) in an effort to understand how those people think. How is giving up life worthy of self esteem? How is running away from pain worthy of respect? I never understood that twisted concept ever. It's contradictory in all it's essence. The only thought I can understand is the finanual costs. I am not with that, but I can see where they come from.
Your bias is taking the upper hand again. You speak highly against everyone else, but that’s rather easy to do from your comfortable position.
Anyway, let me put it to you this way: I don’t like pain (BTW, pain is an evolved mechanism, there’s nothing mysterious about it, as some people seem to think). Only masochists like to feel pain. Why would I want to feel unnecessary pain (for instance, when you have terminal cancer). I’m a fairly bright person now, why would I want to let my mind be ravaged by a disease such as Alzheimer’s, and see my once good memory disappear?
You see contradiction, but I only see self-consistency. If you praise pain so much, go burn your hand in the stove. I take my hand away when I put it in a hot surface; I run away from pain, thank you very much.
Call me a coward if you want, I don’t care about your judgment, but I won’t let anyone take this right from me (that’s why I’ve already have barbiturates stored). If I ever become a comatose patient, I hope my family does the right thing and pull the plug; that’s what I expect them to do.
BTW, the financial costs never entered the picture to me (and most people considering their options). So don’t speak about financial costs, because they have little bearing on the issue (especially when you’re insured).
Which is why I said, circumenstances change people
Their situation isn't different from a suicider, it's full of despair. However, I dare them not to feel afraid from death if someone forcefully kidnapped them ( for example ) and pointed a gun in their face ( though after recovering from the shock, they'll probably ask for death again. Point I am making? Obviously, the contradiction and irony of the situation
How is that significant to the previous dicussion? It points out that people in such condition can have a change in mind no matter how deperate they are. )
This is a baseless assumption. Where did you get this from? It seems to me that you made up this little thought experiment in your mind and you think that it proves your point. But AFAIK it has no basis on reality; except for the fact that those who are asking for euthanasia don’t want to die shot in the face but surrounded by their loved ones in a peaceful way (drugs that affect the CNS are the quickest and safest way to achieve this).
And I ll say it again, people can change no matter how bad their sitatuation is.
Yes, people change. But what if they don’t change and still disagree with your views. Do you think that we should force them to live?
Wouldn't that be great?
It would suck, because it would mean that a lot of self-determination would be lost in the world.