Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
In either case, someone, either Bush or me, is making a choice of one life over another. Except that we already know I'm a living breathing human being, and these eggs will never be a living breathing human.
It's not a matter of me selfishly choosing my life over another's any more than the decsion not to allow stem cell production is a choice to sacrifice my life to prevent the loss of a cystoblast which might under other circumstances become a person. Either way, people are choosing who will live and who will die. Nobody can claim the moral ground on that question.
|
Actually, you just did, and your moral argument is irrefutable. That you are alive, breathing and may benefit from the use of a technology which will harm no one but a frozen piece of tissue which will never be alive makes the decision to preclude such research immoral.* To allow the living to suffer to placate the religious views of some cedes the moral ground. Its repulsive.
I have said it before and I reiterate - the stupidest man in the room, or the man with the least valid opinion, is always the first to use the "slippery slope" argument. The stem cell debate is no debate at all. You are morally obligated to help the living. To value future moral concerns of people who should be minding their own business over a living person is indefensible.
*Its also illogical and practically absurd, but those have never been bases for the govt doing or not doing anything in the past.
