Posted on 10/20/2004 10:42:20 AM PDT by MisterRepublican
Michael J. Fox is a famous TV and movie star. He is witty. He is charming. A few years ago, we learned he has Parkinson's disease.
PD is a slowly progressive neurological disorder, characterized by tremors, shuffling gait, a masklike facial expression, "pill rolling" of the fingers, drooling, intolerance to heat, oily skin, emotional instability and defective judgment (although intelligence is rarely impaired).
PD is currently incurable, although there are several methods to slow its advancement, including drug therapy and surgery.
PD is tragic, particularly in Fox's case, because it rarely afflicts persons under 60 years old.
Yet everyone faces tragedy at one time or another, in one form or another. A person's moral fiber is revealed in tragedy.
So we learned through Fox's affliction that he has either extremely poor judgment or a diabolical character flaw. He supports human embryonic stem-cell experimentation, thus contending that some humans are subhuman and expendable for others' personal gain.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
i agree with the article 100%. the article title, however, is very misleading and perhaps over the top. let's just stick to the facts and our case will prevail.
In other words, "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
SD
I'm a bit confused by it, however.
For instance, I'm not exactly sure why it is that you felt it necessary to bring up the issue of "animal rights". I have never mentioned anything about animals here.
I would point out to you that animals are very different from human embryos, late-stage fetuses or already born children. The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of us.
I'll try to remain discussing the sacrifice of humans, if that's OK with you.
And what I hear you saying is that it is OK with you to sacrifice some humans -- specifically, the weak, the defenseless, and those unable to give consent -- in order to allow research into possible cures for diseases.
And I think I hear you also saying that it is OK with you to sacrifice any human unable to give his or her consent to being sacrificed so long as such "unfortunate creatures" will inevitably die shortly.
Have I correctly stated your position?
Awareness and ability to sense are the distinguishing factors for me. I see no reason to draw any bright line distinction between humans and other animals. Any such distinction is based solely on specific religious beliefs, which have no place forming the basis of law in this country.
Given the unique capacity of humans, and particularly human governments, to plot horrible long-term programs for other selected groups of humans, I don't think it's safe or advisable to delegate much to the government. Delegating to parents strikes me as the best answer. "The weak, the defenseless, and those unable to give consent" certainly include non-human animals, and I'm not willing to dismiss their awareness and sensation by the arrogant rationale that "they're not human". Nor am I willing to give in to impractical extremism advocated by some animal rights activists.
I'm not willing to give full legal rights to a human blastocyst anymore than I'm willing to give full legal rights to a gnat. The blastocyst can't think, can't feel, is statistically unlikely to become a thinking feeling baby no matter what natural or artificial support it is given, and is still capable of splitting into to 2 or more developing embryos, and of being merged with another blastocyst to become a single developing embryo. It is a clump of cells with the potential to do a long list of things, with becoming a baby just one unlikely thing on the list.
They are qualitatively different, and ignoring that difference is as silly as ignoring the difference between a blastocyst and a baby.
SD
I have no problem with stem cell research. In fact, I'm for it too. Unlike Fox, though, I realize how incredibly awsome Bush is (despite our differences on a few topics, such as this) and will be voting for him. I also realize that not all tax payers endorse stem cell research, and I'm sympathetic to that. Fox is a one issue voter, and an issue that's hardly relevent at that. Embryonic stem cell research is legal, just not federally funded. He should donate some of that Family Ties money to a research center that does stem cell testing and leave Bush alone.
They are qualitatively different
In your haste to serve the god of utility, you fail to see how you contradict yourself. Why not just embrace your utiltarianisim? A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Embrace it. You see no need to draw any "bright line distinction" between humans and other animals. Embrace it.
SD
They are qualitatively different
In your haste to serve the god of utility, you fail to see how you contradict yourself. Why not just embrace your utiltarianisim? A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Embrace it. You see no need to draw any "bright line distinction" between humans and other animals. Embrace it.
SD
Great article and dead-on accurate.
No.
Wasn't it you who said this in an earlier post: "Embryos do not have the capacity for awareness or sensation, and are thus very different from late-stage fetuses or already born children. The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of us. It also matters to a creature which is experiencing pain."
If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that there is a difference between human embryos and "born children" -- a difference quite apparent to you and a difference which, I take it, you wold want to see 'enshrined in law'.
But when it comes to any difference between born children aand animals - your position is, I take it, that there is none.
"I'm not willing to give full legal rights to a human blastocyst anymore than I'm willing to give full legal rights to a gnat."
Huh?
What's this talk about "full legal rights"? Who, other than you, is talking about "full legal rights" for human blastcysts?
And, as an aside, do you see no difference between a human blastocyst and a gnat, or are they both worthy of the same dignity as far as you are concerned?
Finally, "Delegating to parents strikes me as the best answer.". Would you include delegating to parents the right to sell their children to people who will sacrfice them in order to conduct medical research?
I doubt it. The dad from the show is a conservative.
Or at least I thought so until I read more posts.
Would you include delegating to parents the right to sell their children to people who will sacrfice them in order to conduct medical research?
Nope. Not already-born children, with functioning brains. For one thing, there'd be no point to it. I would, however, give parents the right to consent to medical research on their own children (which would presumably be carried out within the ethical guidelines of any other sort of medical research), and prohibit the children from later suing the researchers (i.e. make the parent's liability waiver fully and permanently valid). There is a serious problem in this area, which has prevented a lot of routine research on the effects of various treatments on children and fetuses and women of child-bearing age. Many medications are tested only on men and/or women of non-child-bearing age, and then put on the market as "safe", and later discovered to do serious harm to women and fetuses. More people get harmed this way, than would get harmed by starting out with some small controlled studies on these groups. More harm is bad. Less harm is good.
Now I really am confused.
In an earlier post, you said, "For anyone who never reached that stage (embryo, anencephalic, profoundly retarded, etc.), I would delegate the decision to the parents." The last time I checked, kids who were profoundly retarded had "functioning brains". Yet you would (I think) allow their parents to sell them to medical researchers who would kill them in order to do "more good" -- or, as you put it, "less harm".
But you also confuse me with this: "For one thing, there'd be no point to it."
After you say that, you immediately go on to point out how, to your way of thinking, there would be a point to conducting medical research on human beings incapable of giving their own consent.
Tell me, do you support testing of cosmetics on little bunny rabbits?
Apparently, only if the mommy and daddy bunny say it's OK.
Since they lack the ability to speak for themselves, no consent is implied. Strange how that criteria ("lack of being able to communicate") doesn't extend to helpless humans.
SD
Lacking of HAVING anything to communicate is the issue.
You don't think all life has the innate desire to continue living? Apart from maybe lemmings?
SD
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.