In response to the argument that the cells would die anyway, the Catholic Church states that each one of us is going to die but that does not give us the right to kill each other. Our society does not permit experimentation on prisoners or terminally ill people that will die anyway. The fact that an embryo is at risk of being abandoned by his/her parents does not give the government any right to kill that fetus. The analysis of what we may permissibly do with an embryo does not rely on if it is going to go to waste. The claim that the embryo is too small or too immature to be considered human life is false. From the moment of conception, an embryo is as human as anyone else. Biologically, the embryo has all of the human genes and is expressing the genes that set the foundation for further development. Embryos are just as much made in the image and likeness of God as other human beings. Though dependent in many ways, the embryo is a distinct member of the Homo sapiens family. All later stages of life are phases in the history of a human being already in existence. Each person was an adolescent, a child, an infant and also an embryo. The human embryo will not make itself into any other kind of animal because it is a human being. Even if it does …show more content…
This assumption that a good end can justify an evil act has been the cause of much harm in the history of mankind. No hope for a greater good can diminish the mortal sin of murder. We are simply not free to pursue good ends from unethical means. Human embryos are not just a cluster of cells. They are the tiniest forms of human beings. We have the responsibility to protect them. The same goes with people with terminal diseases. If his or her survival is seen as disadvantaging to others, the suffering patient deserves our compassion and respect. We do not go and kill everyone who will soon die. They are a human that deserves
The journal article “Acorns and Embryos” give us a few basic points of whether or not embryos are actual human beings. One analogy George and Lee argue in their article is of the argument Michael Sandel has made by stating how “every oak tree was once and acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm…” Sandel maintains that, by analogy, embryos are different in kind from human beings. But this argument cannot survive scrutiny. George and Lee also makes great points in relations to embryos being human individuals at an early stage of their development, just as adolescents, toddlers, infants, and fetuses.
... anyone has the right in such a case to decide how the embryo is to be used but the owners of the genetic material involved in its creation.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest and philosopher, a fetus is not a human being because it does not possess language or articulated thought - one of the defining aspects of human nature (qtd. in Eco 51). Theoretically speaking, a fetus is not a human until it can think and talk. With that being clarified, the rest of the essay will first include arguments for, and then arguments against, abortion. Karen Pazol, et al.
Abortions occur for all types of reasons, whether it is because the pregnancy was unplanned, rape-induced, or that it holds a life threatening capacity for the woman herself. Pro-lifers believe once one is conceived, he or she are entitled to a right to live. It does not matter whether or not the pro-lifers are able to prove that a fetus consists of personhood. The life of a potential person should not be able to override the right to one’s body. Judith Thomson presents a though experiment where personhood is granted to a fetus, but how that mere fact still fails to override the woman’s right to her body.
Because of these high standards, all embryonic cells used for research come from embryos that have been formed for in vitro fertilization. The unused embryos, which are not used for the process, are discarded unless the donor gives explicit consent for their use in stem cell research (CIRM, 2015). Some who oppose stem cell research use scripture (col. 1:16) as a basis against using products of “sin to do good”. (Which is true). This verse only holds weight if you believe that you are ending a life five days after fertilization. I tend to side with Dr. Peter Kraus in this matter. He believes this early in the developmental stages there is nothing for the spirit of god to enter into. You might as well be taking a sample of the placenta, or cord blood (Kraus, 2010). The process of in vitro, which is where the samples come from, is further the product of man (i.e. Scientist) introducing the sperm to the egg. True, what follows after the embryo is introduced to the womb is a gift from god. Is not also a sturdy structure, a gift from god to a carpenter, when it is god who gave him the talent to build it? Lastly, if the stance is based on the topic of what is considered murder, are we not murdering the millions that could be helped with stem cell therapy by doing nothing?
Children are the people who represent life in the future, and having children is the most desirable wish for every parent. In the past, if a couple couldn't have children, they just prayed and hoped that a miracle would happen to them. Besides, they could adopt children if they wished to. Everything has been changing since then. With new techniques in the medical field such as in vitro fertilization, a doctor can implant an embryo into a woman's body. This new techniques has brought so much happiness to many families. On the other hand, it has also caused so many controversial debates for the rights of the embryos. This issue once again has been brought up in the article titled "Rules for the Frozen Embryos," by Carol Numrich, published in 2002. In the article, the author gives us some cases where some people argue that the embryos are human, but others argue that the embryos are just some undifferentiated cells. However, in my opinion, the embryos should not be viewed strictly as human.
Melinda becomes part of a Space Exploration team. She and twenty others embark on a journey to explore Planet Xenia. Upon arrival at the foreign planet, the space exploration team is attacked by violent aliens with large teeth and tentacles. Melinda and only three of her companions make it back to the escape pod safely. Shortly after their escape from the untamed planet, it is discovered that Melinda has been impregnated by one of the aliens. The team must decide whether it is morally permissible to abort the fetus. Both a utilitarian (act and rule) viewpoint and a Kantian Deontological standpoint must be analyzed to determine the outcome of this unborn fetus.
Religion has always played a major role in the controversy over the lives of embryos. Catholicism is one of the major religions against pro-choice and stem cell research. “Humans as co creators with God have a special responsibility or mission that requires ‘accepting and serving life’ especially life ‘when it is at its weakest.’ This weakness and vulnerability is especially evident in human life at its beginning and its end. Thus, the embryo is in special need of protection,” says Aline H.Kalbain the author of Stem Cells and the Catholic Church (pg. 241). In his essay, he lays down the five main arguments that the Pope has made when confronted with the morality of stem cell research and abortion. He says that from the mome...
Abortion is "the intentional termination of a pregnancy which may include the loss of life of an unborn entity". During the eighth week of pregnancy, the development of the unborn entity known as the Fetus- an unborn offspring- begins, where brain activity becomes detectable. Note, the fetus is not considered Viable until the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy (S. Morris MarquisHO). According to Professor Steven Morris, a fetus becomes a person when it has sentience, viability, brain activity, self-consciousness, etc. "While many people agree that a day-old embryo does not have rights, most people agree that a fetus has rights on the day before it is born". Analyzing the following case:
Most Christians have grave concerns on this critically important issue of embryonic stem cell research. In our view, conducting research that relies on deliberate destruction of human embryos for their stem cells is illegal, immoral and unnecessary.
...ice. While I value my experience, as I feel should be commonly held by others and the way in which we interact (killing adults is wrong), I don’t see a strong enough basis for that view to be held for a fetus. As Marquis summarized, the killing of a fetus is essentially arbitrarily choosing a human cell. Although fetuses in first trimester aren’t single celled organisms, they serve no cognitive function or purposes to themselves, so there are no features in which it is being deprived of if it is terminated. The potential life of a fetus is the same as saying there is a potential for any such biological thing, it is simply a scenario, which could happen if given the opportunity. But if an adult human possesses the ability to have goals and desires, they then should be allowed to make the discretion for their best interest to whether an abortion is permissible or not.
We as Catholics are taught to show respect and protect human life from the moment of conception. From conception, the embryo must be defended, cared for, loved for, and healed, as much as possible, like any other human being should be. God gives life from the moment of conception and we don't have the right to take it away.
Twenty-one percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion (“Induced ABortion in the United States). Abortion is murdering defenseless babies who would‘ve otherwise had a happy life with a couple that is unable to have their own child. Is killing an innocent person ever moral?
The answer to the question "why people do evil things when they know these things are evil" is ultimately dependent on perspective. So if you are wondering whether "the ends justify the means" is a sufficient answer to that question, I would argue that it depends on who you ask and the context in which you ask that person. To the people who strongly believe in the end goal, this would be considered a sufficient response because it makes them feel a little better about the evil they are doing. However, to the people who don't support the goal, this would considered an insufficient response because the means is all that those people see. Perhaps a couple of hypotheticals could help explain this.
The argument can be made that the fetus deserves the same level of personhood that children and adults do. This can be countered with the fact that children and adults are able to live without occupying the body of another person. The point at which personhood occurs may never be established because of the contrasting views for and against personhood and it would be very difficult to establish any kind of middle ground on personhood.