Replies

I can't decide who is more naive, me or Dr. Paul.
Why would he assume what has proven not to be a fact (that doctors and scientists will self-police in favor of the right to life) in contrast to what has been proven a fact (humans will die from cloning of embryos that is designed for the intention of creating and killing those embryos)?

I'm in a bad mood, so I'm not going to talk about Ron Paul anymore, because I'm afraid I'll say something I'm ashamed of.
(I'm going to go out and plant roses in the rain, instead) (maybe it is me?)

There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. Using fetal tissue to produce vaccines (for instance, because that is occurring already) is a form of cannibalism, cannibalizing the fetuses, no matter how they came to be dead for harvesting. Abortion is legal in our twisted nation. The exploitation of that which will be tossed out otherwise is already driving some research and developments. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish?
For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can't make the people more moral in making these judgments.
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. Do you think it will help that I've been characterizing the issues of embryonic stem cell exploitation and therapeutic cloning as CANNIBALISM?... It is cannibalism, as surely as if you were directed to eat the embryos for the treatment.

Has our society lost the ability to reject cannibalism? Some seek to use our tacit acceptance of abortion on demand, to entice 'by default' acceptance of cannibalism. Will our society reject that effort if they see it for what it is, CANNIBALISM?... It frightens me that I can see our society accepting cannibalism 'for the greater good'. Intelligent fellow freepers already approach these issues from that standpoint, the 'greater good'. When cannibalism is accepted in the name of 'greater good' is it really a greater good that is achieved, or a further degeneration of the moral and ethical fabric of a once great nation?

>>>proven not to be a fact (self-police)<<<

I agree again:

The Interface Between Science and Ethics: Probing the Deeper Questions Why Do Many Scientists View Human Embryo Research As Ethically Permissible?

Paul seems more commited to Federalism than the over-riding ethics of inalienable right to life.