Posted on 09/08/2005 4:52:44 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
And in Nazi Germany Jews and other undesirables such as Gypsies and Slavs weren't considered actual humans, and experimentation leading to their deaths was considered good for the worthy humans who might benefit from it.
You can take your pro-death philosophy and try to stuff it into a rational consistent view of life, but the contortions you have to go through are pretty twisted.
Science (and those who don't have a pro-death agenda) knows that a few celled fertilized egg, if left in peace, will be born after 9 months as - guess what! A baby human. It will only NOT be born as a baby human if killed.
I don't want to extend or improve my temporary body at the expense of the lives of others, no matter how small, undesirable, or, in my eyes, unimportant.
I suppose you are pro-abortion as well. If you aren't pro-abortion, then your world view is might inconsistent and obviously requires more objective thought on your part.
But would you agree that it's the right of the parents concerned to make their own mind up whether or not to have this treatment if it proves effective?
If I thought that parents have a right to authorize the killing of an embryo/tiny unborn human to benefit their own child, then I would also logically have to approve of killing an already born human to "harvest" the heart, lungs or kidneys because it will benefit someone else.
If you don't see the logic, you have serious moral blindness.
Everyone has the God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Killing someone to utilize the murdered person's resources deprives him/her of all three.
If you think an unborn tiny human aka embryo is not human, what the hell is it?
I see a group of cells as a group of cells, as do a lot of people. I'll ask again - would you agree that it's the right of the parents concerned to make their own mind up whether or not to have this treatment if it proves effective?
False god bump!
Your body is also a group of cells. How many cells does a group have to consist of to be human, in your world?
Any "treatment" that involves the killing of a human being, large or small, is murder and should be illegal.
It is not entirely clear from the article whether this so-called treatment always involves the destruction of an embryo, i.e. the death of a human being.
I certainly don't consider any group of cells created within the first month of pregnancy to be human.
As for it being murder, what are your views on the death penalty?
Absolutely. Why should anyone, parents, uncles, aunties, or grandmas, be allowed to order the death of another even if it benefits their near and dear?
Death penalty? It is way underused.
In that case, if your mother had aborted the clump of cells that later on miraculously became toad the second*, it would have been theoretically fine and moral?
*were you toad the first at some point in your FR career?
What is the purpose of this research? Fertility treatment? Disease treatment? Did I miss it?
"The scientists will transfer the pro-nuclei - the components of a human embryo nucleus - made by one man and woman into an unfertilised egg from another woman."
You know, these scientists sure can take all the fun out of your run-of-the-mill threesome! ;)
I read the article a couple of times and maybe I'm just dull today, but it isn't clear at least to me whether this process involves the destruction of a fertilized egg/IOW embryo. Do you get it?
You have absolutely no sense of fun or humor.
You don't know me very well, then.
I directed my question to you because your comment was the most recent, and I thought you might have understood the process better than me.
What an accusation! My ping list folks get my somewhat caustic sense of humor all the time.
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.