|
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'm going to pay devil's advocate here. 
Here's the "moral" issue behind stem cell research. In legal cases, except in the matter of abortion, a fetus is considered a human being. If I kill a pregnant woman, or willfully cause her to miscarriage, I will be charged with murder or double murder, respectfully. Seeing as stem cells for research (at least the bulk) come from fetuses discarded from fertility clinics, many consider that to be the killing a human in the hopes of helping another.
A common analogy is human organ transplants. Organ transplants help many people. So what if we found people and used them soley to donate their organs. We killed them, and then distributed the organs out to those who needed them. We have now helped, maybe saved, tens of lives with donated kidneys, a liver, lungs, a heart, etc., but we still killed someone to do it. Is that killing justified?
Now, you may say the fetuses from those fertility clinics, or existing cell lines should be used, because they're going to be killed anyway...might as well put them to good use. However, killing someone to benefit yourself cannot be excused by the fact that you were going to kill them anyway. If I murdered my dad to get my inheritance sooner, would I be able to say, "if I killed him for no good reason it would be bad, but if I did it for money to help myself, it's justifiable.
Here's another common analogy. Suppose that some militant racist group went around lynching black people. Hundreds of innocent blacks are killed. Public outrage grows. Then one day this group announces a new program: Whenever they lynch a black person, they will promptly deliver the body to the nearest hospital, where organs can be removed for transplant. Even if you don't approve of lynching or racism, they say, surely you must applaud us for this. Think of all that good that can be done. Maybe a lynching is a tragedy, but at least this way some good will come of it.
Now with all that said, you can shoot it down by saying a fetus isn't a human, etc. But to some it is, and that's where the problem comes in. Hell, as I said before, the law even considers a fetus to be a human most of the time. I think its easy to get caught up with what *could* happen with stem cell research. But do the ends justify the means? I really don't know where I stand on this issue. Stem cells are also found in fatty tissue and ambilical cords. If they want to take them from there I have no problem. But with current methods, I'm just not so sure. |
One thing I'll never understand is why you guys love the fetus so much, but then hate it after it's born. 
One of the great mysteries...
I got this in email:
| quote: |
The Bush Administration has stepped up its campaign against a woman's right to choose, with a new and deeply troubling assault on personal privacy.
Help stop the Bush Administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Pro-choice Americans must stand up to these challenges to our privacy rights and say, "Enough is enough!"
First, John Ashcroft's Justice Department has subpoenaed the private medical records of women across the country who've had abortion care. The Ashcroft Justice Department actually argued in court that the law shouldn't honor the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship.
And today we learned that Bush's hand-picked head of the Food and Drug Administration may reject the recommendation of his own advisory committee and deny an application allowing emergency contraception to be sold over-the-counter. FDA observers say that such recommendations are rarely ignored. But political pressure from the White House and Congress could trump sound science. Already the pressure has led the FDA to delay its decision, further holding women's access to this important option hostage.
As the political arm of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America is prepared to fight these outrageous actions. We are the strongest voice for women's privacy rights and a woman's right to choose, and we will use every tool at our disposal to make sure the American people know how George W. Bush, John Ashcroft and their anti-choice cronies are dismantling medical privacy and a woman's right to choose.
Now more than ever, we need your financial support to help stop the Bush Administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft from trampling our rights. Pro-choice Americans must stand up to these challenges to our privacy rights and say, "Enough is enough!"
The idea of John Ashcroft rifling through our medical records is exactly what NARAL Pro-Choice America fears most. This is a man who opposes oral contraceptives, the IUD, and Depo-Provera - the very tools needed to make abortion less necessary - because he believes contraception is the same as abortion.
That view is obviously spreading throughout the Bush Administration. The FDA's looming decision can only be explained as an act of far-right politics. Emergency contraception has an excellent safety record, and it's the best way to make abortion less necessary by preventing unintended pregnancy. But far-right ideologues oppose it, and the White House has made clear that politics, not science, should rule.
|
Why are they opposing something (emergency contraception) which will reduce the amount of abortions? That doesn't make any sense, but then their social policies have never made sense. This is another clear abuse of power by this Administration.
___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/
|
