Because the turnabout from tolerance to intolerance is so radical a paradigm shift, truth must be the vital component and raised to a level forgotten during the rise of liberalism and political correctness and touchy-feely tolerance of ‘alternate life choices’. Regarding the exploitation of early individual human life, there is a paradoxical manipulation of collective perception which undergirds the scieitists' efforts. The fundamental axiom of embryology (the science which the exploiters rely upon to do their manipulations of cells and embryos and fetuses and fetal body parts) is individual human life is a continuum that begins at conception. The truth of this axiom is what the scientists base all their following assumptions upon. The individuality of the conceived life must be accepted first in order to test for anomolies of a genetic nature with that continuum begun at conception. To create a clone of another individual, the first truth--that a new individual must be conceived which matches genetically the donor individual--must be accepted ... all experiments and cellular manipulations of nascent life are founded on the first principle, that an individual, unique lifetime begins at conception.
Here's the paradoxical assertion of the scientists: their first principle is that the continuum of an individual life begins at conception (continuum means a coherent whole where interruption of the continuing life will end the continuum), yet they choose to use that continuum truth to negate the earliest age along the continuum, asserting that they are not killing an individual human being, not ending a continuum already begun at conception ... but that is precisely what they are doing!
In the April 2003 issue of Scientific American, page 38, the Skeptic cloumn, Michael Shermer offers 'three laws of cloning', after constructing several strawman arguments designed to ridicule any effort to raise an alarm over the cloning trends. What the glib and insulting Mister Shermer fails to acknowledge is the most fundamental axiom of embryology offered above, and embryology is the science upon which these exploitations of earliest individual human life are all based! In essence, what Mister Shermer seeks to accomplish is tolerance for the cannibalism he favors, but wants to prevent society from having a clear understanding of the parameters of his desired exploitation. Perhaps he realizes that if society becomes aware of the degenerate truth of these exploitations (I would assume cannibalism is still considered degenerate in America), our society will be intolerant of this very endangering wrong and the sleazy liars pushing it as enlightened based on their value system. ... And that's what I mean by truth having to rise to a level of importance heretofore depleted in a too tolerant, too liberalized society.
The scientists wishing to exploit individual human beings are assuming we will tolerate their brand of cannibalism, if they can just get a few 'cures' out there before we come to realize the medical advances are based on cannibalizing individual human beings at the earliest age along their individual continuum of human life. The same demonically inspired tactic served to make abortion on demand a too tolerated 'institution in America', and more than 40 million individual human beings have been slaughtered because of that stealth tolerance and PC defense of same.
The time for INTOLERANCE has arrived. I don't intend to tolerate insulting lies and manipulations of the truth in order that scientists who see nothing wrong with cannibalism may achieve our tacit acceptance of that cannibalism so that the scientists can 'do their thing'. we have build enough nuclear weapons to wipe out civilization--some scientific achievement, eh!)--but it doesn't follow that we should use those weapons or continue building more! Science will soon be able to conceive and raise individual human beings without ever causing a woman to be pregnant, and these same scientists who will achieve these marvels actually accept cannibalism for it utilitarian value in serving their goals. I don't.