NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
So? (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:1)
Now, he is right to note that there are significant differences: first, in the effects, and second, in the motives. But the bottom line is that both treat human life as a commodity, to be violently altered or destroyed for the benefit of others.
I think that really depends on when you beileve human life starts. What does human life mean? Are stem cells human life?
If stems cells are human life,
Re:So? (Score:2)
And without getting into why, yes, that is the belief. So within that belief -- which I took as a given, given the speaker -- it is an apt comparison. Obviously, many people don't share that belief, though many people do.
I contend that stem cells can be taken without a loss of life. If you use something to which there was no purpose previously, that would otherwise waste away for the benefit of others, where is the harm? And does that make it a loss of life?
I don't want to get that deeply into this discussion right now.
How can we ignore the intent in using stem cells and yet focus on the intent of America killing Iraqis?
I didn't say we should ignore the intent. I said, quite specifically, that we should not, when I said, "destroying embryos is precisely the intent of those who favor today's embryonic stem cell research."
As to the matter of what Bush is in favor of, unless he has had an update to his opinions, what I know of him is this. No further stem cells may be extricated from embryos, even those being discarded by fertility clinics. That is not the same thing that you said.
A few years ago Bush became the first President to approve federal spending on embryonic stem cell research. His policy was, and remains, that only existing embryonic stem cell lines (taken from embryos that have already been destroyed, which is what I referenced) are eligible for funding.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:So? (Score:1)
I misunderstood that as meaning ones that were already destroyed, i.e. as long as the embryo was not going to be used, and was already destroyed in that respect, it would be okay to use.