Both sides of the stem cell debate have brought up valid arguments, but the President is seemingly uninterested in them. In a dramatic rhetorical flourish, he has imperiously declared that he is throwing back the curtain on President Bush's scientific dark ages. Good politics, but bad for our humanity.
While our still-Christian society in the US grapples with concepts like euthanasia and abortion, the President blithely brushes these issues aside. His attorney general wants us to stop being cowardly and to start talking about race, but this administration runs and hides from deep moral questions concerning life, how we view it, and what that says about us a a society. Who's the coward now?
Let's put aside the ontological and meta-ethical questions, which we obviously won't settle here. The intellectual argument over what constitutes life, and if and when it may be taken, will always exist.
Let's also put aside the inflated hope of embryonic stem cell research. This article from the NY Times deflates the hype and conjecture about saving Christopher Reeve and curing President Reagan's Alzheimers. Sadly, it also faces the reality that hundreds of thousand of chronically sick in this country will not get the miracle cures that some non-scientist political types have so recklessly promised them.
Where do we draw the line, and what does that say about us as a society?“People need a fairy tale,” Ronald D. G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, explained to The Washington Post in 2004.
Recently, Nicholas Wade in the Science section of The New York Times summed this all up: “Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the $3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.”
“In private, however,” the article continued, “many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells.”
Science, like fire, a knife or a piano, is morally neutral. It is a wonderful tool in mankind's hands. How we use it says much about us as a society.
Charles Krauthammer, doctor, lawyer, and a conservative agnostic paraplegic who supports embryonic stem cell research, has written a good criticism of this administration's approach.
I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn.Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."
Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.
Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.
President Obama has provided no moral, philosophical or logical framework for his decision other than the pharaohnic "So let it be written, so let it be done!" Compared to President Bush's nuanced approach and detailed explanation to the nation, President Obama looks downright anti-intellectual. This is what Krauthammer critiques in his article. Please take a few moments to read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/14beliefs.html?_r=1&ref=us&pagewanted=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303058.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/using_embryoswithout_limit.html
49 comments:
You point out correctly that the US public (mostly Christian) don't tend to agree with this practice. Well, the people in the City of North Vancouver don't agree with building affordable, new housing (through both the public and private sector) because they fear for the view from their balcony to disappear! or they fear that there will not be enough parking! or, God forbid, poor people will be living along side middle-class and rich people!
The publics concerns are not intellectual concerns. And although both agnostics, atheists, etc... are both for and against declaring an embryo/fetus a non-human, and therefore undeserving of moral treatment 'thing'... what can I say? Even though they've come around on the god thing, they're still dragging their feet on the fetus thing.
Obama may not have explained why 'trying' to save the lives of full-grown people is more important than caring for potential humans, but that's because it would rub so coarsly on the American moral common-sense. If he used any of the arguments I used, people would think he was MussObamalini. But, that's not his fault.
He's not trying to piss Christians off. That's not anti-intellectual, that's pro-nuance and understanding/knowing your audience.
Further more, your arguments about abortion/stem-cell research leading to more evil practices is just unsupported. As I wrote before, abortion has been legal since before I was born in Canada, and even euthanasia (hardly an evil practice) hasn't seen the light of day since then. Aside from which, arguments about stopping something because of a fear for something worse in the future are generally the weakest arguments possible.
If I eat this chocolate bar it could lead to a lifetime of morbid obesity and weight sturggles.
MussObamalini, I like it! Although I don't think he's anywhere near that point, yet. I've always seen Hillary as more the Mussolini type.
Anyway...
Science can be turned to sinister purposes. Look at atomic weapons. You keep dismissing my eugenics argument, but it was going full blast until Hitler went and discredited it. People in the United States of America were using the science of eugenics in their twisted attempt to "improve" society. That is a sick use of science.
The society that wields scientific knowledge must do so within a framework that can be logically and morally defended. The president said creating embryos and destroying them is OK, but cloning isn't. Why not?
Why not kill old people who are an economic drain? Why, we could go on a global utilitarian killing binge and save the planet!
It's a slippery slope argument, but the world is full of slippery slopes.
Slippery Slope! I sat here like an idiot for 10 minutes trying to think of that phrase.
I'm for cloning (to some extent). I don't know why Obama is so stringently against it. The strongest argument against cloning still remains: "It's weird".
The gov't isn't killing people here. That's why this isn't a slippery slope. If you believe embryos are people... Well, what can I say? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I can't imagine you think that there is a holocaust going on in America and all you're doing is writing against it in your blog. Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe there is wholesale slaughter going on, but it's legal, so one must fight these things withing that framework.
You will never see me defending people who do violence (or who are just standing there screaming) at an abortion clinic.
I think you see my point, though. President Obama has not defended his thesis. He doesn't even appear to have a logical thesis to defend. All he has is "I say so." Didn't we just get rid of a president who was criticized for that?
You have done a better job laying out his case than he has. You and I profoundly disagree on the life issue, but I can at least say that you have defended your callous, morbid, culture of death, Nietzschean position.
It's ironic that a book written about Nietzsche is called "The Affirmation of Life". I just don't think dieing is the worst thing that could happen to a person (nevermind a potential person).
I'm for capital punishment for the sake of those who would have to suffer it. If I had the option of a life in prison and death, I would choose a life in prison, but at the same time I would almost hope that someone would spare me that life.
There is a short fable (actually, it may be based on a true story; but anyways) in one of Nietzsche's books that goes something like this:
A women in a small town gave birth to a child; except the child was completely deformed and ugly, barely recognizable as a human. She took it to the Priest and he ordered her to kill it with her own hands, and carry the dead child with her for the next three months so that she would remember her sin and never give birth to such an abomination again.
The locals were shocked by the Priests cruelty and thus he replied:
"Would it not have been crueler for me to have let it live?"
Now, I'm not suggesting that all the fetuses would be better off dead, what I am suggesting is that perhaps, indiscriminate spawning (though it should be a right of all people) should not be encouraged, and nevertheless people should have every means at their disposal to both create (octo-mom) or destroy their potential children (within reason, and to an extent that is within their means as parents).
I looked up Bush's speech about this; it was good. I can't imagine that Obama, (and I think even you've admitted this) the great orator that he is would purposely give a speech on the same topic with the opposite conclusion without all the eloquence and argumentative fervour that he has had in his prior speeches and likely will have in his future speeches.
I have to imagine that an advisor told him, "look, every argument for this position we could possibly give would alienate all the Christians in this country (and not to mention those who are strawberry, chocolate, kiwi, mango or follow any other religious faith with any level of mock sincerity). Just state your position on this one. Explain to them that you're trying to lift them out of the stone age, and be done with it.
If before his term is over there is one break-through as a result of funding being allowed to go to stem-cell research (politically) the Democrats win.
Same sort of thing goes for the economy (more or less). Americans don't want anymore boom/bust economics. They want their falls cushioned, and maybe even their ups, milder; that is, if they think that will stop another bust from coming or that it will lessen its severity.
Nietzsche, if taken politically, would be a libertarian. He would want the markets to fluctuate, and he'd want devastation and destruction to no limit, so long as it is followed by re-birth, re-creation, etc...
Let me tell you a state of life change. I mentioned in a earlier blog about a gentlemen that came out of coma and will make short and to point becasue I think the more you open your mouth the more you stick your foot in it.
He came out of a coma and was divoced, wife on low income of things and with is his daughter showing no respect for him, a slut, and on drugs. His daughter has nothing to do with him. He now is starting his life over.
A person might say how do know now embryotic research might help but how many lives will it take to find out? The mortality rate is high!!
Okay, but what does that have to do with embryonic stem-cell research?
I hate to be facetious, but where either his daughter, wife or he himself embryo's?
If his wife had an abortion while he was in a coma, or donated her embryo to research (if you can in fact do that) I could understand the relevance of the story, but as it stands, I don't know how this is a damning case-study for my position.
I can't control what people do to other people while they're in comas. His wife sounds like a complete degenerate from what you write.
CP-The revelance is story how life changes when life is there and then not there. Mark "the guy's name" would have purest sense of sight in how that "you or I wouldn't see" in life's changes.
If there was away to do this research without causing life's to end and then I am all for it. Since the research is causing life's to end and so I am against it.
You nor I can't control's ones life. The path of this guy's wife might be do the supposed lost of her husband did effect the child's life. They are screwed up and there is no doubt about.
Goverment and today's society puts to resource is statistical data and forget about the human factor. One life is greater than another is something nobody can put a cost on and that is what you have done. So, I disagree with you whole haartily and if Canada wants to so kill life to further others than you should be the first to donate and probably get paid to do it.
Fire is alive. It has life. So do trees, antelopes, etc... I'm not for taking away some people's lives to same the lives other people either. Fetuses aren't 'alive' in any significant way. They are less 'alive' than even most higher forms of animals. They don't think, they don't feel, etc... They certainly aren't aware of their surroundings. Think if you had to live in a pool of goo for 9 months! They're, technically 'alive' (biologically speaking, like fire and trees), but not in any meaningful way. That's what you're missing here.
You should read this:
http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/2009/03/affirming-life.html
Your being far too indiscriminant with life. There are valuable forms of life, and at least, less valuable forms of it.
Why do we have to treat organisms that will eventually take on human characteristics/shapes/forms as if they are so special for having the ability to one day becom like us. A monkey is more 'alive' than a fetus (in the meaningful sense). Why don't you argue that monkeys shouldn't be used in scientific experimentation? You'd have an easier case to make there.
Coma is something that you can recover from. What if you're told that (the god I don't believe in forbid) your friends is in a coma and there is no chance he/she will get out of it. Devastating, but, that? you'd have him/her on life support for as long as possible?
This pro-life rhetoric seems like an easy way out of having to make very tough choices and discriminations about life: "'Just treat all human life as charmed.' 'But he's on a feeding-tube; permanently"' 'You hears what I said' 'This one is an organism that has divided into 2 cells' 'Is it human?' 'It will be' 'Close enough. Keep it alive.'"
CP Wrote:
"I have to imagine that an advisor told him, "look, every argument for this position we could possibly give would alienate all the Christians in this country. Just state your position on this one. Explain to them that you're trying to lift them out of the stone age, and be done with it."
That is the best explanation I have heard. I think you're right on this one.
We'll never solve the life question. As I say in the article, it is an ontological issue involving meta-ethics. Your ethical framework determines where you come down on this issue, so it really is a battle of ethical systems.
CP-So, what is your position on Life and when is starts this without babbling like some politician?
Redneck Ron:
He's made himself pretty clear. I think he actually said at one point that a parent has a right to kill their 6 month old baby.
That is why issues like this mean nothing to liberals. They use words like blastocyst,zygote and vegetable to strip them of humanity before killing them.
What makes us human is not our DNA or our biological circumstances. Awareness, self-awareness, an intellect, sentimentality, these all combine to make us human. Embryos, zygotes, etc... have none of these things.
If you can name a single meaningful human characteristic that is shared between us and fetuses, I'm all ears.
You should read this though Ron and Silverfiddle too:
http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/
A heartbeat is pretty dang meaningful
I think the DNA that forms you or anyone else is good thing and that if your dna was tossed a side you wouldn't exist. We=us living are not numbers or not to be used for experiements. The question for you, "Would you throw your child away"?
Don't tell me to read something that justify your position and jsut ocme out and say. Then stand by it!!!
A heartbeat, alone, in not meaningful; perhaps metaphorically speaking, but I mean, my dog has a heartbeat.
I don't have a child. I imagine if I did I would not throw it away; no.
It's biologically significant, DNA, etc... but when it comes to defining what it means to be human, I really don't think any of that stuff is.
DNA is what gives our being. We are defined by our actions. Together, that is what makes us heman and each cannot be without the other. Denying anyone is throwing a child out.
I am not against embroyonic research but at the cost of life. That cost is to high.
Biologically, we would not be who we are without our DNA. I get that. I'm asking if having DNA, itself is enough to garner a being rights.
We would also not be humans if we didn't have cells. Is having cells enough to establish that a being deserves human rights?
That seems like a very odd way of looking at human life.
Fire is alive!?!?!?!?
Now that's a good one, so now... you're an Animist? ROFLMAO
Oh... and if you don't want to piss off Christians, don't start a sentence with "US Public (mostly Christian)", it's the equivalent of "Harlem (Mostly Black)"... and instantly flags your bias.
Oh, and to answer your question:
"If you can name a single meaningful human characteristic that is shared between us and fetuses, I'm all ears."
POTENTIAL!!!
Because no matter how you cut it, a cat has no more potential than being a cat, or a dog a dog. A fetus however, will become a human, sometimes mediocre, sometimes world changing. Name one tree that changed the world.
By your reasoning we should just keep all our money and let all the poor unfortunates you libs are so keen on bailing out, starve... why?
Because the only logical rational for bailing them out is the fulfillment of their potential, otherwise they are just a bunch of oxygen thieves.
I guess I'm religist. Anyways, actually a dog could become Jesus Christ. If your speaking in terms of potential. Anthing could potentially happen. The sun could turn into a big piece of coal, and Bush could become President again.
Fire breathes, it dies out, it grows, etc... it's alive.
Potent vs. impotent, alive vs. dead. You're the one who set up these false dichotomies, as if breathing, and existing are reasons enough to not allow early term abortion, or potential is enough reason to not allow scientists to discard the embryos they use for research purposes.
That they fit in petri dishes or they're big enough to hold with both hands is not the point.
Are we destroying a human life? or are we destroying something before it quite reaches the point at which it is human? I think the latter. Whether that makes you uncomfortable or not, I don't see a good reason to think it's unreasonable.
It could potentially become Hitler and potentially kill 100 million people. Should we be aborting German babies in mass amounts to avoid another potential holocaust?
It could potentially become MLK. Should black women be banned from being allowed to have abortions? I know you think they should, but of course that's crazy.
CP-I have not changed my position on this subject and seems like you have. You carry on carry on carry on and really the only person your conservation with and that is yourself. Take a look how long your responses are and the only person listening to them and that is yourself.
Life begins when cells form to make a human being and when the cells stop living-death. Begining and end and we get screwed up in between. LOL!!! I think we can agree when person dies-they are dead...
You just keep trying justifiying your position because I already know mine.
To you this is a simple issue. Life begins when cells start to form. That's not an ethical definition of human life, that's a biological definition of life in general. By that standard no tadpole should ever be harmed and no larvae should ever be mistreated.
My position has not changed on this matter. For that to happen you'd have to give me a good reason to change it.
Yes, it is simple to me and glad you agree with me on when life begins-biologically speaking and so there is hope for you yet.
What your doing is pulling other things that happen within life or within nature. There are enough tramatic events that cause misscarriages. These are natural events and won't argue those points.
So, your hang up is the ethical side and not the biological side.
Ron, don't play dumb with me. You know this isn't a discussion about the biological definition of life. If that's what it is I'd have taken out a medical dictionary and this would have been finished before it even started.
This is NOT a simple matter. That it is simple to you is a sign that you have not grasped the full depth or significance of this issue.
What it human life as opposed to animals, plant and insect life? Are there certain qualities that seperate us from the rest of the animals?
Yes; of course there are.
What are those qualities?
___________________.
I'll leave that to you. If you can match a single quality that seperates us from animals and plants that is significant/meaningful to human beings (e.g. intellect, self-awareness, etc...) this will be over. I'll change my mind on this issue.
I don't think this is a complicated challenge. Nevertheless there is no good answer to it.
Potential is meaningless. My dog could 'potentially' be the President of Zambia tomarrow and end poverty there. DNA and other biological signs of human life are meaningless because I've never thought that the reason we treat eachother with respect is because of the similarities in our DNA.
If you can think of something else, go. Or else, you may be forced to change your mind on this issue.
I mean find a meaningful quality or characteristic we share with embryos during their first week.
Ill me put this to you simply. Human life begins when the those cells combine. We along with other life in planet start from somewhere.
When you see a fetus in a toilet and it was formation of a child. Then you can put reality to life and where it begins you. There is no reason to sacrifice to medically form life and then to discard it for presumed assumption that it will cure an unknown problem.
Simple yes but to be taken out proportion and make it more complicated then it actually is which others seam to do quite easily.
This is a complicated issue. I haven't made it complicated, if anything I've oversimplified the issue.
The fetus that was discarded would have become a child if it was implanted into a women's uterus, taken to term, etc...
It is also alive when it is only a single cell, not visible to the human eye.
My point is that neither of these are good reasons to think that a zygote deserves human rights.
If you think it will become a human you're conceding the argument right there. If it will become a human child, than obviously it is not a human when it is just an embryo.
Can I possibly explain this to you so that you'll change your mind or am I just wasting my time?
Human life DOES NOT begin when the cells combine (also, the cells don't combine; they start to multiply from a single cell.).
You may mean that when the sperm is implanted in the egg (combine/conception) that that is when human life begins, but of course that isn't when HUMAN life begins.
That's when microscopic cell dividing living in fluids, etc... life begins. The quality of that life is about the same as the quality of a frogs life (if that).
It will become a human (which was Finntann's big point), but of course we cannot halt research because something might go wrong.
By that logic we also shouldn't build bridges because they could potentially collapse.
Unfortunately, from a realistic standpoint, your dog has no chance at all of becoming president of Zambia. You are being silly.
Quite a little rant there.
Anyways, although my dog becoming a president of any country is unrealistic, and despite the fact that an embryo becoming a human is quite realistic a possibility, that is still all it is: possibility.
Ben:
The Kantian imperative of not treating a human life as a means rather than as an end is not relevant here.
I don't believe an embryo is a human life. Despite the fact that it is living (biologically speaking). Aside from which I don't agree with Kant's metaphysicization of morality.
Explain to me how an embryo, fetus, or zygote is a human being, and maybe I'll change my mind.
Also, that you think the slippery slope arguments Silverfiddle gave are relevant is itself irrelevant. Explain how? Show me a case in history where abortion or stem cell research has lead directly or indirectly to genocide.
Also, Finntann seems to be implicitly admitting in his arguments that he does not believe embryos are persons, but only potential persons. Ben seems to disagree but provides no reasons to support his position.
"And I'm stuck in the middle with you, oh I'm stuck here in the middle with you."
Ben, You said a mouthful!
I find it ironic that President Bush, the man who never explained anything (I'm the decider) Explained his reasons quite eloquently on this issue.
President Obama didn't explain squat.
That is the crux of the issue. Whoever is in power doesn't see the need to debate anything. Pure power: that's the ambrosia of our venal politicians.
"Pure power: that's the ambrosia of our venal politicians."
I'm beginning to believe its the ambrosia of everyone in the process, Silverfiddle.
How sad that people would waste their lives pretending that that meant more than it did.
A life is a life not matter how bad or good. Does the Goverment pay for abortions in Canada?
CP-You go ahead keep reading those Doctor's books and maybe one day you can perform the abortions on those unwanted kids.
You need to run for polotics in canada.
A life is in fact a life regardless of circumstances and each human life deserves to be treated with respect, dignity and value.
My point has always been that a fetus is not a human life (yet). I won't go on because obviously Daniel Dennett was wrong, and pointing out non-sequitars, untrue premises, false, dichotomies, and other such logical fallacies is not enough to get certain people to change their minds on issues.
Adam Smith and David Hume appear to have been closer (at least when it comes to assessing the morality of people like you) that it is based purely on emotion and sentimentality.
That's what's at the heart of this issue for you isn't it Ron? You think that because you 'feel' that abortion is cruel (without substantiation), icky and/or strange that not only do you not want to have one or have your wife have one, but that no one should be allowed to have one no matter how they feel about it.
Your imposing your values (which are absolutes/categorical imperatives) upon all other people.
What happened to free choice? Isn't that what god gave people so that they (and not you for them) could choose either right or wrong?
Aren't you in fact hindering their ability to choose through means of punishment and a refusal to provide means to the 'wrong' act, and in fact working against what god set into place.
Abortion may be wrong Ron. You can advise against it and support foster homes and other alternatives as much as you please, but I don't think you should be allowed to have your opinion on this issue mandated for every other person.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for trying.
CP: We are always imposing 'our' values on everbody else, it is the function of a civilized society to regulate its members. We impose our values upon you when we prohibit you from shooting your neighbor in his head because he is playing his stereo too loud (an inconvenience to you) upon penalty of long-term imprisonment or death. The free choice is still there (you can shoot your neighbor), but the choice comes with consequences. The crux of the argument is to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of the collective.
I'll set aside the arguments on stem cell research, because I believe a complete ban to be somewhat of a conservative overreaction and simply address abortion.
A woman, any woman (rape aside), gets pregnant through only her own actions and choices. What are the most common reasons for abortion? They are not rape or incest, they are peformed merely for the sake of convenience. The woman does not wish to have a child at that time, for financial reasons, career choices, or simply lifestyle choices, social embarassment, and so on. So, merely for the sake of convenience a human life is terminated, the argument that it is not human is merely a rationalization to make yourself feel better about killing babies.
The cold hard fact is this: because of the choice and act, one human being will not exist, everything, an entire lifetime, is taken from it by the choice of another. Do it at three months and it is a choice, do it at ten months and it is murder. You may not agree but that is the current legal interpretation.
Here is the real irony: There are liberal democracies in this world where if you run over a farmer's sheep you can be held financially liable not only for the sheep, but for all the offspring it could have produced... yet you could have run over said sheep on the way to the abortion clinic to terminate your unborn child and all the offspring it could have produced. Yet if the farmer decided to terminate his own sheep by poking a hole in its head and sucking its brains out, you and the SPCA, PETA, etc... would be all over his ass for cruelty to animals.
Ron shouldn't be ashamed of himself, he ought to be proud of himself for standing up and speaking out for what he believes in. The fact that you disagree with him is irrelevant, and while subject to debate, he is as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. A society in which no one cares to speak out for their beliefs is not a democracy, it is a totalitarian state of lemmings who go along with whatever the leaders say. Speaking out is the primary basis of a free society. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, not for disagreeing with him, but for your desire to censor him.
That I think is Ben's whole point... we appear incapable of rational and intellectual debate anymore. It's no longer a matter of presenting the more logical and rational platform, politics has been reduced to discrediting you opponent not his position, and we are all the less for it.
~Finntann~
A free society would not allow for laws and regulations upon actions that only directly, hurt, harm or benefit the moral agent.
Violations of this maxim can be seen in the drug laws, regulations upon tobacco distribution and abortion/stem-cell research.
I'm curious as to why murdering a child that would have came into the world as a result of rape is any more moral than murdering a child that was conceived at an inoppurtune time.
I'm not going to address the sanity or insanity of regulations and laws of cruelty to animals, but as far as your accusation of my rationalizing the murder of innocent children, I feel I must address.
I'm not rationalizing anything. My position that an organism without any of the meaningful human characteristics we cherish and take into account when deciding whihc deserve human rights and which do not, does not deserve to human rights is rational.
I have presented many points in favour of my position and wholly debunked your potential argument, slippery slope argument and arguments from moral sentiment.
You raised your potential argument once again, and I'll debunk it again:
That we are not all procreating all the time is in effect taking away the lives of millions, upon billions of children.
You also raised the argument that there is no exact line to be drawn between human and not human and I'll debunk that once again as well:
Just because there is no definate point at which an organism becomes a human does not mean that all organisms should be treated like humans.
That was a bit messy, but I think I got my point across.
Responsibility is not something that is easily regulated, and this isn't B.F. Skinner's America where each good or bad action must be rewarded or punished. It may very well be the case that every women is acting completely irresponsibly when they have an abortion.
The idea that somehow you know that in the case of incest or rape abortion may be the right action to take, but is never in any other case is you attempting to mandate your opinion upon people you have never met before, and and issue you have a very shallow understanding of.
A little while back you argued that since the fetal organism has DNA it is already a human. And you insessently argue that because it will become a human being it has a right to fulfill its potential. Both, almost completely morally insignificant arguments.
CP-Freedom is choice for ones actions but to say forcing my point is just as much as forcing your point. You have justify by talking and talking and talking. Your jsutify yourself constantly be quoting others to support your conclusions and you talk a lot. I don't have to because I drew my conclusion along time ago through lessons learned in life. I hope you stay within life's safety--stay inside and never get your hands dirty. Really don't think you could handle it.
Invite is still open..
You learned that an embryo was a human, and you learned that forcing others to not be allowed to make moral decisions for themselves through life lessons.
Invite to what?
I would have say again your an idiot. I disagree with them taking or making fertizlie ovum versus using other sources for these cells they desperately need. Starting which is the begining of life for experiments-that is so very wrong.
China doesn't let people choose for themselves by doing forced abortion you freaking idiot.
I beleive people should have a choice but they should know all sides of the issue and not just yours.
I beleive parential permission should given and going across state lines by those under 18 should be agains the law.
I beleive the goverment should pay for abortions and in that way we keep people off of goverment programs!!! Cheaper in the long run!!!
I beleive goverment should interfere with families when all the kids get knocked up or get others knocked up.
I beleive mothers and fathers shouldn't be driving 20K dollar cars while living off of wealth fare.
I beleive that rowe vesus wade apply to Canada and invite young women come to the usa to our abortion clinics and collect Canadian goverment monies.
I have invited you on several occasions but it seams you spend a lot of time posting on face book versus getting yourself a life or is your life face book?
This is last time I will be discussing this issue without you visiting me
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.