Posted on 06/10/2004 2:21:32 AM PDT by MadIvan
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The nation should honor President Reagan by committing itself to finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, Rep. Chris Smith said yesterday, but not by using embryos for stem cell research.
Smith, R-Washington Township, who was first elected with Reagan in 1980, yesterday blasted those who have used Reagan's death on Saturday after a decade-long bout with Alzheimer's to advocate embryonic stem cell research.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
The comment was relative to opposing stem cell research on the basis of prohibitions abainst murder and/or abortion.
The connection is direct. Destruction of some unused embryos is part and parcel of the AI process. “Childless couples” could use them, an immoral act in some peoples minds, limits the destruction, but it still goes on. I’m not aware of any justification to take a life to create another one.
Along those lines, if you reject stem cell based on objections to abortion, but accept artificial insemination, which results in but isn’t designed to destroy embryos, what’s your position on the commonly done genetic testing of zygotes? If an embryo has Fragile-X, for example, destroy it and implant a healthy spare, which may get destroyed anyway, or implant it knowing it will result in a retarded child, in the likely unfulfilled hope another couple will use the spare? As an argument, it’s a slippery slope.
My comment was regarding the contradictions I perceive in the use of prohibitions against murder and/or abortion as a primary reason to oppose stem cell research while accepting artificial insemination.
Your position seems to be consistant.
Even if the industry were regulated, I’m certain a market for embryos would develop, either independently, like selling blood or acting as a surrogate, or as a function of “overharvesting”.
Why would you think that? I've no reason to think he's misrepresented the Catholic position, in which case theh belief wouldn't be uncommon. For different reasons, many Jews would take the same position when donors are used in the in-vitro process.
-- And, -- that your efforts to codify your moral beliefs into law is ~very~ divisive to our rule of constitutional law.
Moral beliefs are at the core of our system. I don't see where it divisive at all in a harmful way. I'd much rather see the question debated on moral grounds, rather than see the debate itself rejected as morally based.
In context it still sucks.
Sorry if I didn't read ahead, but this is too stupid to be allowed to stand without comment.
Up yours and the horse you rode in on you dumbass!
Are you painting us all with the same brush? You shouldn't.
Are *you* willing to have the government take tax dollars to pursue this research?
Very poor logic.
At one time in our lives as individual members of the species, Homo sapiens, we each had a body that was one celled, 4 celled, etc.
Your use for research is not allowed, and should not have been allowed when you were 5 days old.
Read this article, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151939/posts
and tell me how outstanding some of these people are.
If a human is able and willing to kill for their purposes, and twist their logic in order to convince themselves that their actions are noble, there's no telling how much of the rest of their thinking is warped as well. Of course they will continue even in spite of the knowledge - and at the core, they must know that it is wrong to kill their own species - that what they are doing is wrong. Have you heard of the Tuskegee experiments?
I believe fertilization outside the body (in-vitro fertilization, or IVF) is gravely immoral, --
Believe what you like, but I would suggest that for your own emotional health, you should realize that your beliefs are not shared in any way by a great many of your peers..
-- And, -- that your efforts to codify your moral beliefs into law is ~very~ divisive to our rule of constitutional law.
Only secular moral belief are codified into law? Or "you can't legislate morality"?
Yep, that is exactly the thrust of our Constitutions "rule of law". NO religious tests for office, and "Congress shall make no law" pretty well says that the precepts/'establishments' of religions are not to be respected by government codemaking/legislating.
All legislation has a moral component Paine. Eliminating seamoles belief system is a tad authoritarian if you get my drift.
Sure, criminal law is based on an ancient moral code; the golden rule, common to ALL cultures & beliefs, even paganism & atheism. -- In that we agree.
Seamole seems to want ~his~ particular religions morals to be codified. -- 'No way', if you get my drift.
What an odd, unique definition of "serial killer," based on your own bias. While there may be cases that meet your definition, the definition is clear on its face: killing in series, one after another.
There is no encouragement of violence in calling killing, killing, and noting that it is done in series.
You might look up "cannibalism," too. It is appropriate, historically and metaphorically, even if there is technological ingestion rather than oral. Cannibals believed they could take on the nature of those they consummed, just as the embryonic stem cell and cloning of nascent life is supposed to give us eternal youth.
Ad hominem attacks against MHG are more telling of your logical processes than his.
You want Twilight Zone? Take a look at Christopher Reeve from a 1968 viewpoint: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151939/posts
Next, go read http://www.betterhumans.com/ and what they hope to achieve, either from the viewpoint of the 1977 discussion of in vitro fertilization or from today's discussion.
Cloned human embryos have already been created and destroyed in Korea. In the animal models, the next step is implantation and abortions at varying stages of development to see the results of their work.
The practical answers to what an embryo *is* are in any embryology textbook. The answer as to whether human beings should be used for the benefit of others has been known at least 2500 years, and elaborated upon by Greeks.
The questions as to embryonic stem cells will soon be where did they get the oocytes for SCNT, and which girls and women will gestate the embryos.
And how will we answer the question, "Should we"? (Traditionally, it's, "Ought we?")
Will we answer before years of men live with and spread syphillus. Or will we answer before gloves and lampshades are made from human skin? Will we answer before millions more nascent human lives are destroyed for the purposes of others, in effect negating the right to life for ever expanding classes of human beings so that now over 10% of the deaths in the Netherlands are due to euthanasia. Or will we wait until we are routinely creating human lives for the purpose of killing them
Seamole is consistent in that he recognizes the fact of the death of those embryos that are created by AI.
Why do you support any moral code, ancient or new, pagan or Jewish or Christian?
I believe fertilization outside the body (in-vitro fertilization, or IVF) is gravely immoral, --
Believe what you like, but I would suggest that for your own emotional health, you should realize that your beliefs are not shared in any way by a great many of your peers..
-- And, -- that your efforts to codify your moral beliefs into law is ~very~ divisive to our rule of constitutional law.
Why would you think that? I've no reason to think he's misrepresented the Catholic position, in which case theh belief wouldn't be uncommon.
Reread my comment. The Catholic position doesn't dominate american thought, but even if it did, majority rule is an immaterial concept in Constitutional terms.
For different reasons, many Jews would take the same position when donors are used in the in-vitro process.
Judeo/Christian concepts of morality do not dominate in our system of Constitutional law.
Moral beliefs are at the core of our system. I don't see where it divisive at all in a harmful way. I'd much rather see the question debated on moral grounds, rather than see the debate itself rejected as morally based.
Fine, argue the debate on your concept of morality. But to demand that laws be codified/enacted based on your religious convictions goes against our constitutional principles, imo.
Yep, that is exactly the thrust of our Constitutions "rule of law". NO religious tests for office, and "Congress shall make no law" pretty well says that the precepts/'establishments' of religions are not to be respected by government codemaking/legislating.
All legislation has a moral component Paine. Eliminating seamoles belief system is a tad authoritarian if you get my drift.
Sure, criminal law is based on an ancient moral code; the golden rule, common to ALL cultures & beliefs, even paganism & atheism. -- In that we agree.
Seamole seems to want ~his~ particular religions morals to be codified. -- 'No way', if you get my drift.
Seamole is consistent in that he recognizes the fact of the death of those embryos that are created by AI.
So what doc? -- We agree the embryos die.
We disagree that the embryos are viable human beings, protected by our constitutional rule of law.
Why do you support any moral code, ancient or new, pagan or Jewish or Christian?
I learned the golden rule at my mothers breast. - "Don't bit the tit that feeds you". - It works, so I support it.
Why do you support your moral code, hoc?
Because, as you said (btw, you copied a lot that was not my post), "It works."
The only way to protect the inalienable right to life is to refrain from discrimination as to which humans are to be given protection - as in "equal protection under the law."
The only scientific definition of human being is to use the species classification. Simple biology. Any *other* definition is a moral discrimination.
So what doc? -- We agree the embryos die.
We disagree that the embryos are viable human beings, protected by our constitutional rule of law.
Why do you support any moral code, ancient or new, pagan or Jewish or Christian?
I learned the golden rule at my mothers breast. - "Don't bit the tit that feeds you". - It works, so I support it.
Why do you support your moral code, hoc?
Because, as you said "It works."
Good to know that you can admit to reason, - when it stares you in the face.
The only way to protect the inalienable right to life is to refrain from discrimination as to which humans are to be given protection - as in "equal protection under the law."
We can both agree that a woman carrying an embryo is a human being, correct? We disagree on when an embryo is constitutionally a human being, correct? Thus, in the Constitutional view, -- the woman has "equal protection'. -- You must prove that an embryo is a human being with equal rights to its mother.
The only scientific definition of human being is to use the species classification. Simple biology. Any *other* definition is a moral discrimination.
Not true. Our Constitution defines who is 'legally;' a human being, and afforded equal protection of the law. - It says [read the 14th] you must 'born' [defined as being capable of being born]. - Viable. --- Embryos are not yet 'viable'.
Thus, in order to win your argument, you must amend our Constitution.
-- Good luck.
So do us all a favor and donate your body to medical research...right now. The sacrifice of your body in it's present state could lead to the development of multiple medical advances. Your advocacy here that other innocent human beings be forcibly destroyed while you yourself refuse to volunteer for the same treatment is transparently hypocritical.
tpaine said, " Good to know that you can admit to reason, - when it stares you in the face."
and
"Our Constitution defines who is 'legally;' a human being, and afforded equal protection of the law. - It says [read the 14th] you must 'born' [defined as being capable of being born]. - Viable. --- Embryos are not yet 'viable'.
Thus, in order to win your argument, you must amend our Constitution.
-- Good luck.""
The fact that you should be able to see as reason is that our Constitution does not prove who is a human being, since the species of each organism is a matter of fact. Again, it is simple biology.
You repeat several fallicies. 1. That personhood depends on law, geography, or location. 2. That it is up to those who would protect the right to life to prove the personhood of a member of the species. 3.That the words of the 14th define a person when the amendment does no such thing. Perhaps it is your unique vocabulary. 4. You confuse the discussion of IVF embryos and cloned human embryos with the cause of "a woman's right to choose" an abortion.
Whether a woman has a right to empty her uterus is irrelevant to the discussion of embryonic stem cell and cloning, since the embryos are not within a uterus.
I'm sure that you understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." The use of the words "born" and "naturalized" in the Constitution does not make it *necessary* for a human being to be either in order to have the right not to be killed, enslaved, or a "person" who has the right to equal protection under the law. Otherwise all visitors to our country would lose these rights at our borders.
Your statement that the word "born" has anything to do with "capable of being born" is nowhere in the Constitution. The definition of "born" is not that elastic. The mere fact that you reach so far as to twist your thinking around this "definition" should tell you that you know that you are lying to yourself.
The onus is on you to justify your discrimination between one member of the species and another, not the other way around. ANd you will not succeed by bringing in irrelevant circumstances and incorrect definitions.
Wow, now you can read the long since passed away minds of the founders to assert that 'born' means viable.
Nope, all I need to read is the plain english of our Constitution, and understand its principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.