I remember back in a previous discussion on this subject, you said something along the lines of, "we don't have the right to choose who lives or dies."
It seems to me that if a person can move into an expendable category, that's evidence enough that sometimes we simply have no choice but to make that decision. Admittedly, in some cases they took some action themselves that forced us to put them in that category, but whether they are at fault or not, it is still us who placed them there. It might be the most important of the factors we need to consider, but it is hardly the only one.
Even in a "just" war, which we have no real choice but to fight, won't there be innocent casualties? We can do everything in out power to prevent them, but sometimes we just have no choice but to make decisions that could cause them. Even when you kill someone to save the life of someone you care about, you are still choosing one life over another, and sometimes it is impossible to avoid making that choice.
So, just when do you make those decisions? Shouldn't whether or not the subject is actually capable of thinking and enjoying the thing you are taking away from it be a consideration? Shouldn't everything that Meagen pointed out about them being embryos be taken into consideration? Shouldn't the fact that they are sitting in a freezer somewhere, and the vast majority of them are doomed to remain in that state for the rest of their existence be taken into consideration? As nice as it might be to be able to adopt them all, there is no logical way you can say that is feasible.
And most importantly of all, if you are willing to kill living, sentient humans in order to protect or save the lives of people you care about, then shouldn't the fact that using these embryos, which already have all these strikes against them, for research might just be the only way to save and protect numerous other lives be taken into consideration?
Although both sides of the abortion issue have their strong points, it would be very difficult to convince me that the pro-lifers' stance on stem cell research isn't absolutely, unequivocally wrong. I tend to think that they are letting their position on the broader abortion issue cloud their judgement in this particular case. You need to make decisions like this on a case-for-case basis. No one decision is always the right one.
Nah, you don't need to feel like you have to. With all these people debating I just felt like I had to get my two cents in, plus I don't really have time to engage in a prolonged debate at the moment. (The fact that the reply came two days after the entry was put up should attest to that.)
More to the point, if you let me get the last word in, I get to feel like I won! ^_^
It seems to me that if a person can move into an expendable category, that's evidence enough that sometimes we simply have no choice but to make that decision. Admittedly, in some cases they took some action themselves that forced us to put them in that category, but whether they are at fault or not, it is still us who placed them there. It might be the most important of the factors we need to consider, but it is hardly the only one.
Even in a "just" war, which we have no real choice but to fight, won't there be innocent casualties? We can do everything in out power to prevent them, but sometimes we just have no choice but to make decisions that could cause them. Even when you kill someone to save the life of someone you care about, you are still choosing one life over another, and sometimes it is impossible to avoid making that choice.
So, just when do you make those decisions? Shouldn't whether or not the subject is actually capable of thinking and enjoying the thing you are taking away from it be a consideration? Shouldn't everything that Meagen pointed out about them being embryos be taken into consideration? Shouldn't the fact that they are sitting in a freezer somewhere, and the vast majority of them are doomed to remain in that state for the rest of their existence be taken into consideration? As nice as it might be to be able to adopt them all, there is no logical way you can say that is feasible.
And most importantly of all, if you are willing to kill living, sentient humans in order to protect or save the lives of people you care about, then shouldn't the fact that using these embryos, which already have all these strikes against them, for research might just be the only way to save and protect numerous other lives be taken into consideration?
Although both sides of the abortion issue have their strong points, it would be very difficult to convince me that the pro-lifers' stance on stem cell research isn't absolutely, unequivocally wrong. I tend to think that they are letting their position on the broader abortion issue cloud their judgement in this particular case. You need to make decisions like this on a case-for-case basis. No one decision is always the right one.
Reply
Reply
More to the point, if you let me get the last word in, I get to feel like I won! ^_^
If you really do want to, though, fire away.
Reply
Leave a comment