Embryos are not "persons," Greg.
That, of course, is the question. You believe they aren't. He believes they are. All your arguing at each other won't get past that basic difference.
You will point to the differences between the embryo and what you consider persons and say that the embryo isn't a legal person, just human protoplasm with the ability, given time to grow in a womb, of possibly becoming a person (if not miscarried, stillborn, aborted, etc.)
Greg, I presume, will point out that at various times in history various other forms of human tissue have also been considered legal non-persons -- Jews, blacks, women, children -- and in each of those cases society has finally decided that gee, the particular form of human tissue involved maybe SHOULD be considered a legal person, and that he's simply more advanced than you in according the same rights to the embryo.
You will never convince the other, since the fact is that there IS no clear and certain answer as to what makes one form of human tissue a legal "person" and another form of human tissue not a legal "person."
If you just accepted this and went your ways agreeing that you will simply disagree about that fundamental question, things would be a lot more peaceful around here. |
