Posted on 09/05/2020 8:35:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
If the Chicoms removed the kidneys from a living human prisoner, resulting in his death, what’s wrong with other scientists harvesting his other organs for vaccine research?
but i will grant you the special case, which doesn’t, i hasten to add, logically justify this whole case as presented, that it is a ***lesser evil**** that a person who would of died may live if there is a murder and the victim “consented” to have his body used to save others.
After all, our Lord, Jesus Christ, died on the Cross so that we could live.
That’s been the big lie of socialists for around 150 years.
Why let an evil act go to waste?
I get a pre-throw-up feeling at the base of my throat - it’s physically repulsive to even hear about using murdered babies. Not to mention useless — adult stem cells are just as more if not more useful, or so I’ve read. Leftists promoted this to normalize murder and make everyone complicit. N O T M E!
And yes, I stopped vaccinating my children when I found they were from babies.
Good post...
1. Doing so provides a false moral justification for the murder.
2. Doing so provides a continued market, and thus incentive, for the byproducts of murder.
RE: 1. Doing so provides a false moral justification for the murder.
The author argues that we should condemn ANY murder, even of the unborn.
His argument is that given the evil deed has already been done, is who is not responsible for the evil deed responsible for harvesting the organs of the evil deed done by others?
Re: Doing so provides a continued market, and thus incentive, for the byproducts of murder
The author argues that it DOES NOT. We still continue to condemn and oppose murder, and oppose and fight any profit motives for doing so.
The issue is MORAL CULPABILITY. Is the scientist who generate cures from already murdered people ( including the unborn ) CULPABLE of the person’s murder?
RE: If the Chicoms removed the kidneys from a living human prisoner, resulting in his death, what’s wrong with other scientists harvesting his other organs for vaccine research?
THAT is EVIL and should be opposed. But ask yourself this question — if someone ( baby or otherwise ) has been killed by an evil person (WHO SHOULD BE PUNISHED), and scientist DID NOT APPROVE, indeed, OPPOSED the murder ( ANY MURDER ), should he be held culpable if he uses the organ of the already dead person to generate cures?
Put it in terms of the golden rule — if you were murdered by someone and that someone was punished ( and he should), would you oppose scientists using your own organs (since you’re already dead ) to generate cures for your children, grandchildren and posterity?
I don’t have to read any of the discussion. No. No to each argument for. Just No. Nyet. Nein. Neen. Non. Yok. Hayir. Nie.
No
The end does not justify the means
The scientist is NOT RESPONSIBLE nor is he CULPABLE for the means.
It has EVERYTHING to do with taking advantage of an aborted baby !
YEP, it boils down to ... because I said so, therefore it is so.
He/she absolutely is responsible
RE: It has EVERYTHING to do with taking advantage of an aborted baby !
The scientist is NOT APPROVING nor is he MORALLY CULPABLE for the killing of the baby. In fact, the scientist can support the punishment of the abortionist.
The issue is this, now that the baby, whose death you condemn, and are not responsible for, is dead, should you just leave him dead, or can you bring out some good from his undeserved death?
RE: He/she absolutely is responsible
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY.
When one denounces an evil act only by their words...
...but profits from an evil act by their actions...
...then one is endorsing the evil act.
Post 38 gets it exactly!
NO!
If the scientist uses the organ for his own purposes, he implicitly approves the actions of the provider of his source, no matter how remotely removed he is.
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.