Dodge. What about antibiotics?
Infertility is not a problem for the species.
Dodge. It is a problem for individuals and families. Now what?
In any event, we are not to play God in deciding who dies or in deciding who is brought to life.
Catch 22: by banning IVF or cloning, you are deciding who is brought to life.
Not all of them are pleasing to Him.
It's not for you or the State to be the arbiter of what's pleasing to Him. When you say it's not pleasing to Him, what you mean is that it's not pleasing to You.
The technology pioneered by doctors "just trying to help infertile couples" is now leading us to cloning.
That completes the logical circle. I suppose it carries weight with anyone who objects to the ideas of IVF and cloning in the first place.
It's like saying that Harry Potter books are evil mainly because they promote reading skills, which can then be used to read other evil books, such as the sequels. (The solution, of course, is illiteracy.)
Which will lead to future disasters.
Name some.
Dodge. What about antibiotics?
I thought I was clear that my objections to science are related only to life and death issues. Transplants and antibiotics are good. They do no harm to anyone and they help people live better lives.
Infertility is not a problem for the species.
Dodge. It is a problem for individuals and families. Now what?
Some people are infertile and always will be. You can't always get what you want.
Like I said, medical advances which help to make people functions normally are good. If a woman is miscarrying because of a hormone imbalance, medicine can correct this. It is counteracting a symptom of a medical disfunction. It is not an end run around the natural functioning of the body. IVF is.
In any event, we are not to play God in deciding who dies or in deciding who is brought to life.
Catch 22: by banning IVF or cloning, you are deciding who is brought to life.
I am sure the laws against murder also prevent certain "life or death" decisions. I'll stand by letting God or nature sort itself out.
Not all of them are pleasing to Him.
It's not for you or the State to be the arbiter of what's pleasing to Him. When you say it's not pleasing to Him, what you mean is that it's not pleasing to You.
Are you a proponent of anarchy? Then you realize that cultural norms find themselves expressed in law. If this country were composed of folks who felt like me about the subject then IVF would probably be banned. It isn't and it isn't. That doesn't mean I have to accept the morality of it. Of course, you do not have to accept my definition of morality either.
The technology pioneered by doctors "just trying to help infertile couples" is now leading us to cloning.
That completes the logical circle. I suppose it carries weight with anyone who objects to the ideas of IVF and cloning in the first place.
Are you denying that cloning technology is sitting on top of the shoulders of the entire IVF, articifical reproductive technology industry?
Good grief, man! They use the "products" of IVF to perform their cloning experiments. If they didn't have the IVF toys to play with then cloning wouldn't be where it's at today. QED.
It's like saying that Harry Potter books are evil mainly because they promote reading skills, which can then be used to read other evil books, such as the sequels. (The solution, of course, is illiteracy.)
No, it's like saying that playing around with human life in embryo stage leads people to want to play around even more with human life in the embryo stage.
Which will lead to future disasters.
Name some.
Folks will lose a child in an accident and then "clone" him to try to make a new "Timmy."
A Woody Allen type will clone his wife and then dump her when his daughter/wife starts to remind him more of the girl he fell in love with.
People will abort their accidental "natural" babies in order to order the latest genetically pure baby from Sears.
Like Gattica, "naturally" conceived people will be relegated to second class status, as they will be deemed too short lived to be worth the bother of educating.
SD