Stem Cells, etc... Looking for a Natural-Law argument for an atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chris_C

Guest
My Friends,

Has anyone come across a good natural-law argument regarding embryonic stem-cell research? (Or even simply messing with human reproduction) I’m dealing with an atheist.

Chris C.
 
p.s.

among argumentsI’d hope to adress isthe assertion that an embryo is not a person.

Chris C.
 
You could try to use a “What if” argument.

What if Embryonic Stem Cell research did produce a great treatment for Parkinsons and other diseases ?

Where would we get enough raw materials for the cure of thousands of people - in what would be years and years of perscription treatments ?

Where do the embryos come from now ?
Miscarriages.
Abortions
In Vitro Fertilizations
Fertility clinics with embryos “on ice”

Where would the curing embryos come from…
Miscarriages
Abortions
Women who intentionally take fertility drugs and farm out their eggs for In Vitro feritlization
Embryos “on ice”

Doctors - hospitals - abortion clinics - fertility clinics - they could all get rich on this.

WOW ! A whole embryo Industry !
Even a secular humanist might find these ramifications a sick and twisted use of human reproduction.
good luck
 
I’m not sure he would. Playing devil’s advocate, I respond: think of all the good that will come from the selfless donation of these women. They are like blood donors.

Chris C.
 
An embryo is a human being. Nothing is added to that human being following conception - this being just develops. Killing that human being for the purpose of experimentation is abhorrent, akin to the experiments done on live people by the Nazi’s and others during some of the more horrific wars of the 20th century. Try to appeal to the atheists’ concern for the dignity of the human being and the inalienable right to life that every human has. Frame your argument as a social justice issue - this may persuade this person.
 
New human beings begin at conception.

(I avoid arguments using “person” as that is not a biological concept, but a legal and philosophical one.)

If human beings can be killed and used for experimental and medical purposes, then embryonic stem cell research is OK. If we aren’t allowed to experiment on humans, then use of embryonic stem cells is not OK, because it kills human beings.

Those arguing for use of embryonic stem cells take the position that the cells are taken from the embryo at such an early stage that it isn’t really human. Well, then, when does it become human?

JimG
 
Since the typical atheist has science as his god, use the fact that science has proven life begins at conception. Natural law says we shouldn’t kill each other. Life is to be protected.
 
Jim G–

the distinction between person and human being is useful.
thanks very much.
any other takers?

C
 
Here’s how I do it:

First you must have the person admit to the fact that a human life is at stake. There are a few ways to do this, but unfortunately the ADAMENT ATHEIST will deny them one by one regardless of his scientific mind.

Arguments at your fingertips:
  1. You can ask, ‘dogs make puppies and humans make what?’
  2. Something cannot come from nothing i.e. zero x 10 equals NOTHING! If its a blob of tissue then it will remain one.
    3)Ask the atheist on what terms he denies humaness. Is it size? Intelligence? Consciousness? Will? Self-sufficiency? Then proceed to show him why you’re both lucky you haven’t run into a bigger and smarter individual while you were unmotivated toddlers. Oh, and be sure to remind them of the dangers of passing out (consciousness).
Hopefully, after alot of roadblocks they will be willing to admit the possibility. Once this is done, you can play off of their basic knowledge of law: don’t shoot at something unless you’re 100% sure it isn’t a human (this one works well enough) .

At this point you should bring up another law man has learned over time (through evolution?), i.e. protect INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE. Stick to this and he won’t be able to cloud the issue.

Good luck and God Bless!
 
Chris C.:
Jim G–

the distinction between person and human being is useful.
thanks very much.
any other takers?

C
Click to expand...
Just a clarification.

In my view, every human being is a person.

Since human beings have their beginning at conception, I do believe that we are persons from that instant.

But the word “person,” not being a biological concept, is more apt to raise side issues. So to keep the question focused on when a new human being begins, one has to focus on the biology. Every individual of the human species has a beginning, and conception is it.

JimG
 
I don’t believe in athiests.

I believe there are some who say they are athiests in an attempt to escape moral obligations that they already understand. And they sometimes convince themselves temporarily if they say it enough.

Abraham Lincoln once asked a man who was cussing him out, “What is bothering you on the inside?”

If somebody was really an athiest, they could easily conclude that there was no distinction between man, animal, laboratory rat, fish, bird, tree, amoeba, bacteria, virus, anything living or anything dead. Because there is no god who cares about any of them, none of it would matter. Sun, moon, stars, planets, all are dust, all come from dust, all become mere dust. So stem cells, embryos, babies, mothers or fathers don’t matter either.

Everything would be less than an accident, because there was no god who even had an intent but missed (causing an accident).

Logic itself is does not exist for an athiest. Because there is no perfect logic. All imperfect logic is therefore not flawed, because perfect logic does not exist. How can you say something is flawed, if there is no perfect model to compare it to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top