I once was a member of a merry band of libertarians and Ayn Rand objectivists who educated me quite a bit re: economics. But when it came to social issues, what they had to say literally took my breath away. The more extreme end of this merry bunch of libertines actually looked forward to the day when brainless human bodies could be grown on vast farms for organ harvesting. Needless to say, the welcome mat was quickly withdrawn once I started speaking my mind on the subject.
I don’t understand why folks take Rand’s writing, novels, as scripture.
Thanks for the ping(s).
The use of embryonic stem cells is far more complicated both morally and scientifically. Adult stem cells are much better candidates for treating disease than embryonic cells.
The embryonic cells would have a different genetic makeup than the person who is being treated with them. This would mean that these cells would have the same problems being rejected, just like when someone receives an organ donation.
Adult stem cells could be harvested directly from the patient who needs them. This means that those cells would be genetically identical to the patient and would not be rejected by the patient’s immune system.
From a scientific standpoint, it makes more sense to focus on umbilical cord and adult stem cells. I also think that pandora’s box is an excellent description of the moral implications of developing any treatment that depends on the destruction of human life.