Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
House Bans Coloning of Human Cells
    #364418 -

It seems that every day I hate this country more and more, and after this disgusting move by the house, I am literally filled with disguist and hatred for America.

It seems that the government would rather see the american populus suffering from horrible and dibilitating dizeases like alzheimers than using stem cell coloning to get nessecary cells, then desroying the embryo to cure these dizeases.

"This House should not be giving the green light to mad scientists to tinker with the gift of life" - J.C Watts, R Oklahoma

I doubt this stupid bastard would be saying that if he had to suffer. Is it really an ethical crime to try and stop the suffering of humanity?? I thought we were as a human race were supposed to try to stop unnessecary suffering.

"Cloning is an insult to humanity" - Watts

Coloning for the purpouses of creating another human in a specefic image is. But doing it to save lives, to end suffering?

"Why would we condemn the world and future generations not to have this miracle?'' - Greenwood R - PA

Yes! Its a good thing to see at least some of these people have half of a brain.

"Today's overwhelming and bipartisan House action to prohibit human cloning is a strong ethical statement, which I commend. We must advance the promise and cause of science, but must do so in a way that honors and respects life.'' - Bush

This guy keeps getting dumber and dumber every day. I honestly hope someone assinates him. heh, "we must do so in a way that honors and respects life". THAT'S THE WHOLE FRIGGING PURPOUSE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH! We want to respect life by prolonging it and improving the quality for people. What a bunch of idiots.

Well, I think I'm done ranting here. What do you think? Check this out for more info


I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.
- Isaac Asimov

Edited by PotSmokinHippie on 07/31/01 11:27 PM.



--------------------
"assumption is the mother of all fuckup" - me

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #364563 -

I hate to say this, but I have to side with the wacky Christian right on this one (and as I'm a rabid left wing socialist that's saying a lot).

Have you heard about how they grow these embryonic stem cells? The process makes Dr. Moreau look like an animal rights activist and beneficent philanthropist.

Don't buy the corporate spin on this one. If you're at all concerned that human fetuses might have any feelings as they grow, this 'science' represents the worst form of torture that can be imagined. I am by no means your average knee-jerk pro-lifer, but when I found out what happens during this process I was almost physically sick - heck, just thinking about it makes me queasy, and I've got a stomach like a concrete elephant.

--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Beery on 08/01/01 04:51 AM.



--------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #364575 -

Sorry, I don't agree. Cloning is a very sensitive matter. Whilst it undoubtably has many possible benefits to humanity, there are also many problems. Where do you draw the line between that is ethical and what is not?

Do you believe it is acceptable to breed foetusus specifically so they can be harvested of their stem cells, and thus turn some people into nothing more than consumer goods?

I don't think profit motivated corporations are the correct people to make the moral judgements that are essential when dealing with cloning, and the only way to stop this is an outright ban.

Yes, for some people this sucks, but this research is still contuniung in other countries and anyone who wants this treatment wil be free to travel to countries where it is legal.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: Phyl]
    #364587 -

Basically here's my thoughs on the ethics of coloning:

Ethical:
Using coloning to create cures for dizeases

Not Ethical:
creating humans so that they look a specefic way.
creating people in general.

Let them breed fetuses for getting stem cells. I personally don't consider a fetus a person.

You main arguments here seem to be that coroprations are doing this only for profits. This is the true thing here, and it sickens me. I'm as about as left wing as they come (marxist) and personally I think that the benefits of stem cells should be available to all, which obviously it will not. I have the same felling on gene therapy, god damned capitalist pigs trying to get a patent on genes! It baffels the mind!

You do make a good point though, the corporations just want to promote this for profits. But the thing is that banning this will get us nowhere. A lot of people can be helped by this, even if corporations are exploiting it.

Oh well, at least this research can continue on in other countries that aren't so profit driven. At least not all is lost.

I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.
- Isaac Asimov


--------------------
"assumption is the mother of all fuckup" - me

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #364683 -

man.....you are bitter aren't you..... :smile:

Before you start hating Bush you might want to aim your hatred towards the house...since they are the ones who voted against it...Bush is only a third of the power...

I personally don't know where i stand because i am ignorant to the processes and procedures involved in collecting stem cells....but one thing i do know is pointing fingers at who YOU percieve to be at fault is premature and unnecessary.

Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick  *  there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #364688 -

****I honestly hope someone assinates him****

That's just fucking stupid.

I hate Clinton..but i don't want to see him dead

Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #364748 -

"Let them breed fetuses for getting stem cells. I personally don't consider a fetus a person. "

But that's just your opinion. It's not based on any research or logic, because it's impossible to tell what goes on at this level of development. Anyway, the personhood of the fetus is not really at issue. It's completely irrelevant. The question is whether or not a fetus can feel pain, whether the developing brain material within the fetus has any level of consciousness, and whether it's justifiable to destroy a life in order to enhance another's life. It seems clear that no one can adequately answer the first two questions, and thus it is not justifiable or ethical.

Besides, there are other ways to get stem cells. You don't need to get them from fetuses.

--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #364780 -

> It seems that the government would rather see the american populus suffering from horrible and dibilitating dizeases like alzheimers than using stem cell coloning to get nessecary cells, then desroying the embryo to cure these dizeases.

And lets not forget applications like cloning spinal cords, to help parapelegics.

> "This House should not be giving the green light to mad scientists to tinker with the gift of life" - J.C Watts, R Oklahoma

I'm glad that this guy thinks so highly of what are undoubtedly some of the most gifted scientists in the world.

> "Why would we condemn the world and future generations not to have this miracle?''

Seriously. What kind of wonderful things could we do for people with genetic engineering. People who can't have babies would be able to have children. Mentally disabled people might be able to be cured. Cancer could be cured. There's an almost endless list.

Is it not ethical to help other humans?

> This guy keeps getting dumber and dumber every day.

It's not Bush's fault. He just reads what his advisors tell him. He's actually a robot.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: Kid]
    #364794 -

"Is it not ethical to help other humans?"

Not if in doing so, you harm other humans. That's clearly unethical. As soon as you harm or destroy a sentient life (or a potentially sentient life), your actions are unethical, no matter what your motives are for doing so. It doesn't matter that you are going to help other humans by doing it. The action is clearly wrong.

Josef Mengele experimented on Jews in Auschwitz in the hope of helping other humans. Was he right?

--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: Beery]
    #364850 -

"Is it not ethical to help other humans?"

"Not if in doing so, you harm other humans. That's clearly unethical. As soon as you harm or destroy a sentient life (or a potentially sentient life), your actions are unethical, no matter what your motives are for doing so. It doesn't matter that you are going to help other humans by doing it. The action is clearly wrong".

What's at stake here is not whether an action is "right" or "wrong", but whether or not it should be legal. Unlike morality, law is a black and white issue: either something is legal or illegal. There is no room for negotiation, debate, and clarification of ethical norms. And crucially, there is a mechanism of enforcement/coercion attached to law, that is, people would be motivated by fear, rather than moral reasons and choices. Given that the issue in question is so controvercial, and given that there are arguments for and against, do you think law is the best method of dealing with the issue? Why not rely on persuasion rather than law and coercive force attached to it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: svoboda]
    #365098 -

"What's at stake here is not whether an action is "right" or "wrong", but whether or not it should be legal."

But surely whether something becomes legal hinges on whether or not it's moral.

"Unlike morality, law is a black and white issue: either something is legal or illegal. There is no room for negotiation, debate, and clarification of ethical norms."

Of course there is. Debate on the house and senate floors doesn't often focus on legality. It often focuses on morality. Legality is the purview of the Supreme Court, not the congress. Law is only black and white once a law is passed. Until then, the issue is framed in shades of morality.

"And crucially, there is a mechanism of enforcement/coercion attached to law, that is, people would be motivated by fear, rather than moral reasons and choices."

People should not be motivated by fear of legal action when morality is at stake. Moral law is much more binding than any law in the state or federal statute books.

"...Why not rely on persuasion rather than law and coercive force attached to it?"

But persuasion is coercive force too. What it comes down to is this: Moral law is always right. Human law is not. We bend and break each at our peril, but I would be very wary about breaking the former to obey the latter.

--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Beery on 08/01/01 11:53 PM.



--------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #365140 -

In reply to:

THAT'S THE WHOLE FRIGGING PURPOUSE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH!



They didn't ban stem cell research. Inhibited it a little, but it hasn't been banned.

Stem cell research is the hot button issue right now, so this is what everyone is fired up about. This bill has a more far reaching effect then what's happening in the present, however. I personally think they should amend the Constitution to prohibit cloning. Cloning could be immediately, or in the near future beneficial. But I think that the possible detrimental, or even scary side effects of allowing this to happen, could be much worse.


"If it ain't one thing, then it's the other. Any cause that crosses your path; your heart bleeds for anyone's brother. I've got to tell you you're a pain in the ass." Oingo Boingo!


--------------------
"If it ain't one thing, then it's the other. Any cause that crosses your path; your heart bleeds for anyone's brother. I've got to tell you you're a pain in the ass."      Oingo Boingo!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: Beery]
    #365451 -

>> "Is it not ethical to help other humans?"

> Not if in doing so, you harm other humans.

Scenario #1: You are being attacked by someone who is clearly attempting to kill you. You harm (or kill) the person in self defense. You have now helped a human by harming another. Is that not ethical then?

Scenario #2 - Civilians are being shelled by the enemy's military. You kill the enemy soldiers to save the civilians. Unethical?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: Kid]
    #365462 -

"Scenario #1: You are being attacked by someone who is clearly attempting to kill you. You harm (or kill) the person in self defense. You have now helped a human by harming another. Is that not ethical then?"

Firstly, how do I know the person is 'clearly intending to kill me'? The example is clearly flawed in the way it gives me omniscient knowledge of my attacker's motives. Secondly, this example is unrealistically confined with regard to my options. However, if I kill someone to save my own life, yes, that's clearly unethical. If I let the person kill me, that's also unethical. Ethical choices lie between those two extremes.

"Scenario #2 - Civilians are being shelled by the enemy's military. You kill the enemy soldiers to save the civilians. Unethical?"

Certainly. Two wrongs don't make a right. Again, ethically, the right choices lie between the two extremes of A. permitting the bombardment to go on without trying to stop it, and B. killing the enemy soldiers who are doing the bombing.


--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Beery on 08/02/01 10:57 AM.



--------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: Beery]
    #365533 -



Svo: What's at stake here is not whether an action is "right" or "wrong", but whether or not it should be legal.

Beery: But surely whether something becomes legal hinges on whether or not it's moral.

Svo: Not at all. Many criminal laws have nothing to do with morality. Besides, whose morality are we talking about? Each person has his/her own morality, and the morality embodied in the law is therefore false morality.

Svo: Unlike morality, law is a black and white issue: either something is legal or illegal. There is no room for negotiation, debate, and clarification of ethical norms.

Beery: Of course there is. Debate on the house floor doesn't focus on legality. It often focuses on morality. Law is only black and white once a law is passed. Until then, the issue is framed in shades of morality.

Svo: Yes, so if you don't pass any law at all, the issue would forever remain framed in shades of morality. This would require a person to make a moral choice each time s/he engages in the activity in question. Once the matter becomes law, the question of morality is simply no longer relevant.

Svo: And crucially, there is a mechanism of enforcement/coercion attached to law, that is, people would be motivated by fear, rather than moral reasons and choices.

Beery: People should not be motivated by fear of legal action when morality is at stake. Moral law is much more binding than any law in the state or federal statute books.

Svo: What "moral law"? Who's legislated it? Where can this law be found?


Svo: ...Why not rely on persuasion rather than law and coercive force attached to it?

Beery: But persuasion is coercive force too.

Svo: Not necessarily. Persuasion gives a choice to the person whether or not s/he wants to be persuaded.

Beery: What it comes down to is this: Moral law is always right. Human law is not. We bend and break each at our peril, but I would be very wary about breaking the former.

Svo: So, has your 'moral law' been legislated by some divine forces if it's not 'human'? It's always right?? Now I am really confused. Help me out.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: svoboda]
    #365597 -

Svo: "...Many criminal laws have nothing to do with morality. Besides, whose morality are we talking about? Each person has his/her own morality, and the morality embodied in the law is therefore false morality. "

I didn't say that law is always moral. I said that people argue for and against laws using arguments based in morality. Therefore law comes out of lawmakers' sense of morality to a great extent.

Svo: "if you don't pass any law at all, the issue would forever remain framed in shades of morality. This would require a person to make a moral choice each time s/he engages in the activity in question. "

Issues remain framed in morality anyway. Every time a person performs an activity, there are moral questions that should be answered before engaging in them. Legally, the Nazis had every right to put Jews in Concentration camps, but it doesn't mean they were right to do so. After the war, many Germans were imprisoned for holding law above morality. Post war International law condemned them for doing so.

Svo: "...Once the matter becomes law, the question of morality is simply no longer relevant. "

I disagree. The existence of law doesn't supercede morality. Moral law, and natural law are more binding (as is clear from my previous answer).

Beery: "People should not be motivated by fear of legal action when morality is at stake. Moral law is much more binding than any law in the state or federal statute books. "

Svo: "What "moral law"? Who's legislated it? Where can this law be found? "

In moral philosophy or the study of ethics. Not all laws are written in statute books. The law of gravity is not written down, nor did it come into being at the whim of some judge or jury. It is nonetheless very binding.

Beery: "But persuasion is coercive force too. "

Svo: "Not necessarily. Persuasion gives a choice to the person whether or not s/he wants to be persuaded. "

Not necessarily. In the absence of evidence of choice, persuasion becomes coercion. It is not always the case that a person knows of an alternate choice. Unless the persuader makes the person he/she is trying to persuade aware of all the available choices, persuasion is more like coercion.

Beery: "What it comes down to is this: Moral law is always right. Human law is not. We bend and break each at our peril, but I would be very wary about breaking the former. "

Svo: "So, has your 'moral law' been legislated by some divine forces if it's not 'human'? It's always right?? Now I am really confused. Help me out."

Moral law need not be subjective. You seem to think it always is. Moral law can be applied objectively. In that case, it is always right in every situation. Given omniscient knowledge, there is an ultimate moral right and wrong available to be found.

--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: Beery]
    #365828 -

as im sure kid will agree, morality is NOT set in stone, what if one does not believe in some sort of omniscient and unfallably objective view life. i am a believer that everything in this world is subjective and therefore personally open to interpretation. what you see as red, i see as black yet call red. i think one has to read more into Nietzche and similar philosophers to totally understand subjectivism.
now i know i sound naive, as i felt when i had a theology major give me the same lines you are putting out, but as i feel that humans are nothiing more than more (or less) evolved creatures (animals) the concept of soul seperating us from beasts is foreign. it is a very western idea, and even growing up in a catholic home, i cannot understand. we are not subject to any more or less subject to morality than the snake or panther.
as for the original question, i think there should be no laws regulating research, but no gov. funding. if people opposed to the process dont want treatments from the advances, fine. just as women dont have to get abortions, peoples dont have to use the new treatments.



--------------------
kill white noise

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: jihead]
    #365845 -

"as im sure kid will agree, morality is NOT set in stone"

I'm sure if we were omniscient, morality would be set in stone. That means that there must be an ultimate form of morality. Human morality is naturally flawed because we are not omniscient, however, that's not my definition of morality - I don't necessarily confine the concept itself to human knowledge.

"what if one does not believe in some sort of omniscient and unfallably objective view life."

Naturally, no living creature can be omniscient (as far as we are aware). But that doesn't mean that morality has to be confined to what we know. It is theoretically possible for some non-selfish being to be omniscient, therefore it is theoretically possible for an ultimate morality to exist that isn't subjective. Ultimate morality is a theoretical concept, and I find it difficult to believe that someone could refuse to believe in its possibility. The very fact that I imagine it means that it exists as a theoretical reality. Since morality is all theoretical, then it already exists. Belief in it is unnecessary.

"i am a believer that everything in this world is subjective and therefore personally open to interpretation. what you see as red, i see as black yet call red. i think one has to read more into Nietzche and similar philosophers to totally understand subjectivism. "

But theoretically, pure objectivism can exist. Unless you are an idealist (which would lead naturally to belief in an omniscient being anyway), it must be admitted that there has to be objective reality existing outside of subjective perception.

"now i know i sound naive, as i felt when i had a theology major give me the same lines you are putting out, but as i feel that humans are nothiing more than more (or less) evolved creatures (animals) the concept of soul seperating us from beasts is foreign. it is a very western idea, and even growing up in a catholic home, i cannot understand. we are not subject to any more or less subject to morality than the snake or panther. "

I think you're bringing an unnecessary religious aspect to morality. Morality has nothing necessarily to do with religion - some aspects of religion may be a subset of morality, but morality is not necessarily a subset of religion.

"as for the original question, i think there should be no laws regulating research, but no gov. funding."

What if you were to be one of the test subjects? No laws - are you sure about that?

"if people opposed to the process dont want treatments from the advances, fine. just as women dont have to get abortions, peoples dont have to use the new treatments."

That's true, but if people are opposed to the practices, don't they have a duty to do more than just not profit from them? Surely if experimentation involves human torture as a byproduct, people have a moral duty to prevent such suffering if they are aware of it and if they think causing suffering is wrong.

It seems to me that your defence of the subjectivity argument is merely a smokescreen for a belief that progress in genetic research is warranted no matter what the cost (to others). Now that viewpoint is a very subjective one.

--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Beery on 08/02/01 08:46 PM.



--------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
We suggest that you resist all advertisements,
and be wary of any corporation's promotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #366102 -

Well..
I don't understand the whole medicinal stuff behind it..
But it sounds to me like recycling abortions.
I'm all for recycling.

**************

Ebola is a wonderful thing.


--------------------
**************

(Ped) Slavery leads to rebellion which leads to liquor store robberies, rap and hip-hop


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: PotSmokinHippie]
    #366584 -

Post Deleted a la Obscurity

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: House Bans Coloning of Human Cells [Re: ]
    #366618 -

Ban human cloning? Does this refer to whole humans or parts of them? Cloning means copying. You can clone a gene-thousands of human genes were cloned when the genome was being sequenced. All the cell lines that are used in research into cancer and other diseases are 'clones'. Is this now going to be illegal? If I accidentaly clone a human gene in my lab (has happened b4) will I have brocken a law?

Instead of the dove as the symbol of peace we should have a pillow. Its got more feathers but doesnt have that nasty sharp beak......


--------------------
Instead of the dove as the symbol of peace we should have a pillow. Its got more feathers but doesnt have that nasty sharp beak......

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Objective Morality [Re: Beery]
    #366643 -

Beery writes:

"Moral law need not be subjective. You seem to think it always is. Moral law can be applied objectively. In that case, it is always right in every situation. Given omniscient knowledge, there is an ultimate moral right and wrong available to be found."

Beery is absolutely correct. There is such a thing as objective morality, and it does not require omniscience to discover it, although it may require omniscience to correctly APPLY it in every possible situation.

For example, I don't know for sure how to apply it to the issue at hand. To harvest stem cells from a dead fetus is not immoral. Killing a viable fetus solely to obtain stem cells IS immoral. (note the use of the word "viable").

Cloning individual cells is not immoral, whether they are human cells or animal cells. Cloning human individuals is... well, it depends. It is not immoral if the resulting individual is treated identically to every other human being who was born naturally or through in-vitro fertilization or host mothers or whatever. If the individual is cloned solely for use as an "organ bank", then clearly it is immoral. Note, however, that it is not the act of cloning that is immoral in itself.

It is not immoral to abort a three day-old clump of tissue. It IS immoral to abort a seven-month old otherwise healthy fetus if the mother's life is not in danger. Is it immoral to abort a three-month old fetus? I don't know. NO ONE who is not omniscient knows, although the more medical science progresses, the closer we come to knowing that, too.

pinky






--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "torture-lite" and human rights after 9/11 Edame 867 4 06/28/03 08:08 AM
by Cornholio
* Egypt bans matrix 2 downforpot 741 5 06/17/03 08:21 PM
by uno
* Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 3,340 37 12/20/03 07:05 AM
by mntlfngrs
* House Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban *DELETED*
( 1 2 3 all )		 Demon 3,668 50 10/03/03 04:32 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Free speech falls prey to 'human rights'
( 1 2 all )		 wingnutx 2,858 35 08/19/03 07:18 AM
by shakta
* Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons
( 1 2 3 all )		 Anonymous 4,386 42 05/10/03 11:30 AM
by Xlea321
* Jewish terror cell members convicted in bombing plot wingnutx 608 2 09/18/03 01:52 PM
by wingnutx
* Poll: Should "racism" be a valid excuse for banning?
( 1 2 3 all )		 enimatpyrt 3,965 55 12/14/03 11:14 AM
by Rono

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,231 topic views. 3 members, 0 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.