If it cannot be seen by the naked eye, nor has it any conscience, or visible signs of pain or other foundations to show cognitive response, then would you call that a life form that needs to be protected?
Why?
2007-04-12 06:36:37 · 3 answers · asked by Try 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I'm really having trouble with this question. I can see the merit of both sides and it makes me cringe. But I guess life has tough questions and answers that we can choose to deal with or choose to ignore.
Perhaps you've seen the following in the UK news: "NATALLIE Evans broke down in tears after a team of judges ruled she could not use her own embryos to become a mother. The 35-year-old said she was "distraught" that she could not use eggs, fertilized through IVF in 2001, to have a child of her own. The judges, sitting at the European Court of Human Rights, ruled that her rights to become a mother did not outweigh the rights of her ex-boyfriend, Howard Johnston. It means that the embryos - currently stored at the Bath Assisted Conception Clinic - could be destroyed within 28 days."
If Mr. Johnston was truly acting on principle, it would be one thing; but I have a firm suspicion that for him, it's a matter of exuding power. I have a problem with any decisions that are made simply because someone has the power to do so, without giving regard to anyone else.
2007-04-12 09:12:24 · answer #1 · answered by Annie Answers 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we have microorganisms in our intestines that help us break down and digest food. they meet your definition.
there are plenty of microorganisms that contribute to the world as we know it; tampering too much with natural systems has repercussinos on all "big" life, too - especially humans.
2007-04-12 13:41:20 · answer #2 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I like microbial lifeforms. They are good to me.
2007-04-12 13:39:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋