I oppose scientific progress that comes at the cost of killing people.
And how are you qualified in your opinion about the “personage” of a blastocyst?
How are you qualified in your opinion about the “personage” of a blastocyst?
Please understand, all opinions are respected with reference to validity. We have to also consider consequence for such opinions. My concerns about your opinion are:
1. If we grant license to the idea of stem-cell research being classified as “murder” then we widen the definition of that crime and cheapen the meaning of “life” itself.
Criminalizing slavery also broadened the definition of crime. Every advance in human rights necessarily broadens the definition of crime. This in no way “cheapens” life.
2. I personally abhor abortion as a means of birth control, but my opinion does not change facts found in Levitt’s work “Freakonomics,” unwanted babies grow-up to be criminals…read the statistics.
You still have no right to kill them. Presumption of innocence, no initiation of force, and all that good stuff.
You are weighing the moral issue of life/death/suffering before a “human” is present.
This is just untrue. And My morals are based on rights, not suffering/
I’m more focused on the “death-sentence” that last a life in poverty and ignorance.
Let’s kill the homeless!
Actually, many unwanted children lead full and happy lives; that is, if they are given a chance and not killed.
Both are sad consequences but yours is idealistic and you bring no answers to the table to change that result.
I do, in fact, want to help the poor and disadvantaged.
Are you an “abstinence-only” atheist as well?
3. You are trading live sentient creatures for potential ones.
Blastocysts are not “potential people”. They are not sentient, sure, but sentience is not the grounds for personhood. Otherwise, were I to put you under general anesthesia, I could kill you ethically.
We are all “Pro-life” in the respect that we want people to live wonderful lives.
And if their lives will not be wonderful, kill them.
I oppose the initiation of force. We should all try to improve each other’s lives, but we should still not kill.
You and others, who push a personal bias over reality are in fact “anti-abortion.”
This is a direct consequence of being pro-life.
Say as much.
Again, qualify yourself as to this issue.
If embryonic stem cells come from the blastocyts left over from in-vitro fertilization and would normally be destroyed, how does this constitute killing people? Shouldn’t you also be against in vitro fertilization as well since this is the process that directly leads to the creation then destruction of these cells in the first place?
Yes. And I do. Well, to be more precise, I oppose the killing of IVF embryos.
Please don’t confuse Nulono with science or reason. Great questions.
Oh, great. I oppose homicide, and am therefore stupid. Nice ad hominem.
Then you pretty much just oppose progress.
There are times where every sane person must be a Luddite. For example, if we were learning about biology by nailing people to boards and vivisecting them.
Why is killing people a special case, why not all living things.
Because of the very definition of personhood! I assume you meant “Why is killing humans a special case?”. We have a moral obligation to our own species. Just like with all other species. But, ideally, we could extend protection to all life. However, we can’t hope to do this if we can’t even behave morally with our own kind!
I suppose then you would have to sacrifice some of that nice cozy scientific progress to keep your morals.
Yes. Scientific progression is nice, but, as I’ve stated before, it must not be done immorally (just like everything else in the world! What a shocker!).
What about statics. You know, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (cells in a dish).
The lives of many blastocysts outweigh the needs of one girl. The life of only one person would outweigh the health of one person, or of many people.