Should MP's vote with their conscience.

[Trumpton]

Young Prof wrote:

> jacking off to Lolly Badcock

Blimey Young Prof, you caught me red handed, to coin a phrase. !blush!

[Sam Slater]

Or 'red-ended' ............literally!

[Trumpton]

Young Prof wrote:

> Or 'red-ended' ............literally!

Sounds painful !wicked!

[Sam Slater]

Well, we disagree then.

I'm completely for embryonic research and abortion as a person is much, much more than a few dividing cells. Taken at the genetic/cellular level, the only thing you seem to care about is that these cells are human cells, which I find weird because I see the immorality of murder as cutting short a consciousness; a self-aware being that has feeling and understanding.

That bunch of cells -to me- is just an extension of the mothers body. Those cells need the mothers blood supply and immune system; that bunch of cells has no consciousness or anything that would make them considered a 'person' in it's own right. It just has the potential to become a human being....which takes me back to what I've already stated: That every cell in your body, that has dna data, is a potential new life.

While you need biological cells for consciousness, once you have consciousness, it is only that that evolves, understands and maintains morality.

[Sam Slater]

But you're obsessed with this 'potential' thing. It's a bunch of cells, full stop. A sleeping person is exactly that: A 'Person'. There's a difference between killing human cells and killing a 'person'.

Yes, a fertilised embryo has 'potential' to become a person, but so does an unfertilised egg; so does every living sperm you're carrying. You talk of cut-off points with abortion, but you still need a cut-off point for your view on 'potential'.

Any cell that contains your dna has 'potential' to have dna extracted and used to fertilise an egg. Where's your cut-off point on potentiality? Does morality only start, when it comes to murder, when the egg has slightly more 'potential' than the unfertilised egg? Do you see your problem with this viewpoint? You're judging the rights & wrongs of murder on potentiality. That's like saying kid A has a lower IQ than kid B so we don't need to waste money educating kid A; he just has less potential for becoming a positive influence in the society he/she lives.

At least with my outlook I can positively say that a bunch of cells with no self-supporting structure outside the mother; with no self-awareness, or consciousness; and with no physical pain which can be felt, then it can be morally killed off with much the same nonchalance as a woman flushing her monthly menstrual blood down the toilet, or me jacking off thousands of 'potential' sperm later on just for my own, short-term, self-gratification.

The cells can be called human cells, or a human embryo, but they're not a 'person' and so bringing morality into this issue just because of varying degrees of 'potential', as I've pointed out, brings it's own problems because you need to decide at what level of potentiality do you bring that morality into the equation?

Sorry if I'm rambling on, and not very clear in what I mean, but I hope you get where I'm coming from.