Abortion Controversy

[BTGBullseye]

What was this thread about again? XD

It's about giving me as much -rep as possible because I'm against abortion being an option if the mother won't die if she bears the child all the way through birth...

[Axeldeath]

What was this thread about again? XD

It's about giving me as much -rep as possible because I'm against abortion being an option if the mother won't die if she bears the child all the way through birth...

 

So if scientists develop a way to remove the child from the mother's womb without killing the fetus and then allow it to grow to childhood... Would you readily accept that option?

[danielsangeo]

What was this thread about again? XD

It's about giving me as much -rep as possible because I'm against abortion being an option if the mother won't die if she bears the child all the way through birth...

 

There might be a reason for this. You are telling others what they can and can't do based on your opinions. If I was of the opinion, for example, that Christians should not go to church, would it be right for me to have this passed into law and force Christians to not go to church?

[Michael Archer]

Because that involves limiting who can create it and charging for it.

 

And how is protecting the product of your mind and life (an invention, such as medicine) a bad thing?

 

No, they’re not alike. You’re not defending yourself if you kill something that cannot kill you, something that is not trying to kill you.

 

And like I said before, to take away one's liberty and self-autonomy is a death sentence since you need those things to survive.

 

If someone's reason and best interest is telling them that they will not be happy if they carry the baby to full term and then somebody like you uses the police to force them to not let them pursue their own values, that is a death sentence.

 

Everyone has the right to healthcare.

 

This implies that you have the right to the lives and effort of other people. This implies that you have the right to own slaves.

 

This goes back to why corporations should not be able to patent medicine. If you can make medicine and deliberately withhold it from people, resulting in their deaths, that is morally wrong

 

But you just said that it's ok for corporations to patent inventions....you know what? Never mind.

 

On the moral side: by what right can you use force to take the fruits of labor away from another? Again, your notion implies that you have the right to the lives and effort of other people.

 

On the practical side, passing a law that would not allow for corporations to choose to whom they sell their medicine and under what circumstances would be counter-productive. It would make sure that corporations would never make life-saving medicine again. Why should they if there's no profit? It costs a lot of money to make it...I don't even think YOU would sink that much money into something that won't get you something in return.

 

If you're in agreement, I suggest we drop this section of our discussion, since it's not really relevant. I posted quite a bit about this in the Capitalism vs. Statism thread.

 

And again, this comparison is unsound because an acorn is a potential oak tree that has not been planted. A fetus is a growing human being that has already implanted. If you want to compare the acorn to something, it would have to be the zygote.

 

Irrelevant.

 

I'll rephrase that: A fetus is different from a baby, so nature forces us to treat them differently the same way nature forces us to treat a newly planted tree differently than a fully grown oak tree.

 

Are you happy now?

 

If you can use that definition of rights to justify saying that something that cannot “trade” does not have the right to live, then it’s time to rethink your definition of the word. Furthermore, if a fetus does not take any course of action, you cannot respond to it in “self-defense” because there’s no action to defend against.

 

Again, that's not what I said. I said that rights are conditions of existence given by the very definition of human beings.

 

Rights are a social thing. If you're on a desert island, the issue of rights would not arise. A fetus feeds off the nutrients provided by its host. That's an action, isn't it?

 

You’ve spent this entire thread dictating what has them. That seems pretty subjectivist to me. Yes, saying that rational human beings need to be rational in order to survive and therefore are the only ones who have rights is you dictating what has rights and what doesn’t.

 

Not dictating, but rather saying why we have them. There's a difference.

 

So by your definition, babies don’t have the right to live. They can’t think and they can’t own property. They survive because others care for them. And that is necessary for every stage of life. Humans survive by thinking, by claiming land and property, but they also have to survive by looking out for each other, helping each other out, doing things for others when they can’t do them themselves. We are all connected, regardless of what motives or benefits we perceive in being connected. Those are inescapable conditions of our survival, no matter how much you might not like to admit it.

 

Babies have rights because they're completley separate entities and all their actions are social.

 

The interaction you're describing between humans and how they exchange things is called a "trade." This is exactly where rights come into play. Since rights are necessary for survival, if one wants to live in a peaceful society, one has to respect the rights of his fellow man.

 

If one doesn't respect their rights, one is using force. Force is death, since rational mind doesn't work with the barrel of a gun pointed to it.

 

That is a repetition of what I’ve been doing, but okay: Nature does not dictate that only humans have rights.

 

Then what does?

 

To say that you have the right, for instance, to torture an animal for no reason is false. Yet according to your view of rights, the government has no right to prevent it, because that would be an initiation of force. Against a man torturing another living thing. Honestly I’m amazed I even have to explain why there’s something wrong with this line of reasoning.

 

Whenever someone initiates force, someone's rights get violated. ALWAYS.

 

To survive properly, as I explained before, humans need to be free to do a lot of peaceful, non-force things (rights). For animals to survive, they initiate force. Animals don't have rights as part of their identity.

 

The government's job is to protect rights and animals don't have rights, so the government shouldn't do anything.

 

Granted, torturing an animal is still disgusting and perverse, but so is advocating genocide. Both things should not be illegal.

 

The view that only rational human beings have any rights at all is so contrary to the way the world is it’s almost funny.

 

Contrary to the world? How so?

 

Your view of rights says that we actually do have a right to basically abuse the very things we depend on for our survival, or rather, none of those things have the right to be spared the abuse.

 

I assume you mean animals. Why do they have the right to not be abused?

 

I seem to recall that animals abuse each other in the wild all the time as part of their survival. Have you ever seen a hyena catching and eating its prey? They actually eat it while it's still alive. Now, rights confer moral responsibilities on another. There's absolutely nothing immoral about how a hyena survives; it's a condition of existence. But this need to initiate force is exactly why animals don't have rights.

 

You say the government shouldn’t dictate how corporations, for instance, should conduct themselves, yet corporations pollute on a regular basis, hurting everyone. Your view of rights requires an ability to prevent oneself from affecting the world around it that, quite frankly, humans do not possess.

 

Did I ever say that if you harm another person, you're not responsible?

 

Because you’ve spent this thread trying to say that rights only extend to rational human beings as if they are capable of sustaining themselves without the aid of other living things around them, as if they don’t impact the world around them, and as if they don’t consume finite resources from the world around them.

 

By "aid", I think you mean trade.

 

You do realize that resources' limit is only as much as humans can produce, right? Resources are produced by humans and humans need freedom to do that (i.e. they need people and governments to respect their rights).

 

Sorry, but taxes are not morally wrong. As you said, the government is basically an extension of the people, for the people, and by the people. Ideally we establish it as a structure with the specific purpose not of profit, but of maintaining the safety and well being of the citizens who establish and work for it. Therefore it stands that we also need to fund such an organization via taxes that are established fairly and again, by the people. If one lives on American soil, then they pay taxes to the American government, and the benefits of doing so come back to the people who paid the taxes. Unless the government misuses the money in frighteningly stupid ways (which they do, but this is the fault of the individuals who set those policies, not a fault with the idea itself) If someone rented out a room in a building you owned, wouldn’t they owe you rent?

 

Of course a government needs to be funded.

 

But the fact that you can not even imagine a society where government property is owned by, say, public corporations, means that the current government has done such a good job with their propaganda and has convinced you that statism is the only way to fund it.

 

It needs to be funded, but like you said, the only rights it has are rights that the people give them. So if I don't have the right to take money from you, I can't give that right to a government.

 

As for rent thing: if the person doesn't like my terms and conditions, they should move out. You can't really just move out of a country (assuming you only have one citizenship). You exist by right, not permission. However, with the apartment thing, you live in the apartment only by the tenets described in your agreement with the landlord; it's private property.

 

And yet newborn babies survive without that ability, or any of the others you claim are necessary to survive. In fact, your version of what our basic survival needs are is only truly accurate if we make the conscious decision to only look out for ourselves and not help others. Again, I do not see how this is not a subjectivist view.

 

This is why a baby's rights are different than a grown human e.g. a baby can't own property.

 

Creating jobs that underpay, place employees in substandard and unsafe conditions, force children to work long ours, and pay them squat for the work they put in is never morally right, even if there wasn’t a job there before, it is still not morally right. It is still taking advantage of a desperate situation.

 

Well, forcing children to work is never morally right. Did I ever say it was?

 

Even if the corporation is paying them what the market demands (which is arguable), they’re still harming them, for the reasons I explained earlier. Hence why the system we have now is kinda broken.

 

Well, then I guess the job they're performing isn't required by the market. It's unproductive work.

 

Which is not really work. Which does not really deserve a decent wage.

 

You also defended their right to exploit the desperate enough to make it seem as though they’re doing them some kind of favor by paying them insufficiently in a terrible work environment. The egoist view does not dictate this as wrong, which is why I say it is flawed, because there is nothing morally right about the situation I described.

 

The workers are grown people. If they think they're being exploited, then they should work for someone who isn't exploiting them. Business' compete for workers.

 

No, I mean extremes. Calling the type of situation I’ve described with overseas laborers “mutually beneficial” when it is only truly beneficial for the corporation is simply false. Is something more than nothing? Yes, but factor in the effects it has on these people working in these environments barely making enough to survive. That is not beneficial. A slightly less-crap situation is still a crap situation, and it is well within the corporations’ power to not underpay, to make sure that their workers are taken care of, but in the situations I’m describing they don’t, because they know they can get away with it. I can see no justification for saying this is morally right.

 

It's morally right because no force is being involved.

 

If you don't mind, could you please post your responses to all my corporation stuff in the Capitalism vs. Statism thread? It's not really related to the topic anymore.

 

Yes, the individual is important, and so are the individuals around that individual. It is morally right to help others, and no less right if you’re taking a personal hit by doing so. We can’t all only do things that benefit ourselves in some way or another, self-sacrifice is necessary for survival. It’s like Aristotle’s view about the mean, the idea that true morality falls between extremes of excess and deficiency. In this case, the two extremes being total selfishness, always only looking out for our own interests, and selflessness to the extreme that we lose our individuality and merely see ourselves as sacrificial pawns. We cannot deny ourselves or our individual value, nor can we deny others or their individual value that goes beyond how they can benefit us.

 

I think it's less right to take a personal hit by doing so. That's a double standard; why is it bad to help yourself at the cost of other people, but it's good to help other people at the cost of yourself? Unless, of course, you choose for it to come at a cost to yourself, but then that's your decision and that your value that you're pursuing. Then that's not really altruism, is it?

 

Aristotle? I love the man to death; he was one of the first great thinkers and one of the first people to propose the notion of "natural rights". But he did often get stuff wrong, like how he said we thought with our hearts and how we only have five senses.

 

In this case, the "truth lies between the two extremes" is an example of the Golden Mean Fallacy. Even though he was a great thinker, he was human, and he made mistakes.

 

I don't see how extreme selfishness is bad, honestly.

 

I keep seeing this mentioned, that a baby and a fetus shouldn’t be considered alike. I never said they should. I said they were both stages of the living, developing human being, and that their most basic right to live was the same, in spite of the multitude of metaphysical differences. There is nothing insane about that idea.

 

But my point is that the conditions in which the fetus survives entails no rights. To say that the fetus has the right to life would mean to say that it has the right to live inside a woman without her permission. If it has rights, that means the government has to protect those rights and force the woman to carry it to the full term. That means that the woman's body doesn't belong to herself, but to the government to dispose in any way it sees fit. It means she lives by permission, not right.

 

Where we seem to disagree, however (and please correct me if I'm wrong about us disagreeing here), is that I also think it is morally right and necessary that we do look out for each other, share, and help, even on occasions where there is no direct benefit to us. And really, to say that an act of kindness or self-sacrifice will definitely have no benefit at any point in our lives requires a level of foresight that humans are not capable of.

 

Yeah, we disagree there. You think that it's a moral duty to help other people and to sacrifice yourself to others, which is pretty much altruism.

 

We don't really disagree on the definition of life, per se; we disagree on the fetus' conditions of existence warrant rights.

 

I never said that helping people will never benefit you. On the contrary, helping people can sometimes return big dividends that money can't buy. But that's selfishness to do something nice for someone else because you like to do that and you think it will pay off in the end, isn't it.

[ProHypster]

Hey look at this, after 2 weeks or so my philosophy that you won't agree due to moral reasoning stands true.

[Geneaux486]

That avatar of yours sometimes makes me imagine Rainbow Dash saying what you’re saying, which is kinda awesome.

 

And how is protecting the product of your mind and life (an invention, such as medicine) a bad thing?

 

Because it’s limiting the distribution of beneficial and in many cases life-saving innovations. Withholding that is morally wrong.

 

And like I said before, to take away one's liberty and self-autonomy is a death sentence since you need those things to survive.

 

It’s not a death sentence because no one is going to die.

 

This implies that you have the right to the lives and effort of other people. This implies that you have the right to own slaves.

 

If you want to draw that conclusion, that’s your decision, but no, I was implying no such thing, nor does my viewpoint that everyone deserves healthcare follow a logical straight line to advocating slavery. Furthermore, when I say everyone deserves healthcare, I mean in situations where the government would fund it when the people in question would otherwise die without it. I do not equate this with slavery at any stage.

 

On the moral side: by what right can you use force to take the fruits of labor away from another? Again, your notion implies that you have the right to the lives and effort of other people.

 

On the moral side: By what right (again, morally, not legally) can you withhold life saving innovations from other people solely for profit? It’s wrong no matter how many times you reword it. Furthermore, again, my viewpoint does not imply what you say it does. If the innovation, say, medicine, can be made from ingredients that can be relatively easy to attain (at least for others who work in the field), there’s no justification for legally forbidding others from making it.

 

If you're in agreement, I suggest we drop this section of our discussion, since it's not really relevant. I posted quite a bit about this in the Capitalism vs. Statism thread.

 

I think we’re in agreement as far as the legality of the system goes. I am fine with setting it aside if you are.

Irrelevant.

 

I'll rephrase that: A fetus is different from a baby, so nature forces us to treat them differently the same way nature forces us to treat a newly planted tree differently than a fully grown oak tree.

 

Are you happy now?

 

Your comparison makes sense now, and while I do agree that a fetus is different from a baby and therefore should be treated differently, I do not agree that the difference extends to whether or not we have a moral right to kill it.

 

Rights are a social thing. If you're on a desert island, the issue of rights would not arise. A fetus feeds off the nutrients provided by its host. That's an action, isn't it?

 

Rights are social, ethical, legal, and moral. A person stranded on a desert island has no one around who would acknowledge his basic rights, but he still has them. As for the fetus, the nutrients are provided via a natural and unavoidable function of the woman’s body.

 

Not dictating, but rather saying why we have them. There's a difference.

 

You’ve done a fair amount of both.

 

Babies have rights because they're completley separate entities and all their actions are social.

 

They take resources and give nothing back. By your definition of rights, babies do not have them. This is what I argue against.

 

Since rights are necessary for survival, if one wants to live in a peaceful society, one has to respect the rights of his fellow man.

 

Agreed, but we also have to respect the rights of those fellow men who are not self-sufficient but are alive nonetheless.

 

Then what does?

 

On the small scale, you.

 

For animals to survive, they initiate force. Animals don't have rights as part of their identity.

 

Yes they do. We survive by force as well, as a species, we always have. That’s why wars are fought, lands that already have people living on them are claimed for other countries and colonized, it’s the reason why those of us in America are here to begin with. All living things have rights, they just extend in different capacities to what that living thing is capable of perceiving, doing, and being.

 

Contrary to the world? How so?

 

Because human beings are part of the world, and dependent on countless other living organisms for survival, and have the potential to destroy them and by extension ourselves if they are mistreated.

 

Why do they have the right to not be abused?

 

Because they’re living things, because they can feel it, and because it is unnecessary. You said yourself that torturing an animal was disgusting and perverse, so really, you should have no trouble seeing why I believe they have moral rights.

 

But this need to initiate force is exactly why animals don't have rights.

 

The need to initiate force is irrelevant in terms of rights in general. If a hyena attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself by taking it out. That’s as far as the need to initiate force effects their rights. It does not mean a dog has no rights in a situation where it’s done nothing wrong but someone abuses it anyway.

 

Did I ever say that if you harm another person, you're not responsible?

 

Not by your definition of “harm” you didn’t.

 

You do realize that resources' limit is only as much as humans can produce, right? Resources are produced by humans and humans need freedom to do that

 

We can’t create oil or fossil fuels. And when we produce we have to be careful that we are not negatively impacting the environment from which we get our raw materials, otherwise that environment will stop yielding them.

 

But the fact that you can not even imagine a society where government property is owned by, say, public corporations, means that the current government has done such a good job with their propaganda and has convinced you that statism is the only way to fund it.

 

An ideal government is made for the people, by the people, and therefore funded by the people, with the specific goal of protecting those who run and fund it with no goal of profit in mind. A corporation having any say in that would completely defeat the purpose. It’s adding in a middle man who’s interests conflict with what the government is ideally supposed to do. The government doesn’t so much have the right to tax us as it does an obligation, and we have an obligation to pay those taxes (as long as they’re reasonable and not misused). It’s our system, we run it, we fund it. Again, ideally, though this rarely works out so well in real life.

 

This is why a baby's rights are different than a grown human e.g. a baby can't own property.

 

So you do agree that rights differ depending on the stage of life we are in. If that’s the case I don’t understand why you have such a hard time seeing why I think other living things have rights in a similar fashion, limited to their capacity, but there nonetheless. I don’t expect you to agree, of course, but so far every time you’ve tried to paraphrase my views you’ve gotten it wrong.

 

Well, then I guess the job they're performing isn't required by the market. It's unproductive work.

 

Which is not really work. Which does not really deserve a decent wage.

 

Except that they are making things that are being sold at high prices, and this system of justice you’re convinced works is still allowing them to suffer.

 

The workers are grown people. If they think they're being exploited, then they should work for someone who isn't exploiting them. Business' compete for workers.

 

One, they’re children, two, again, you’re talking about an ideal situation, which is not what’s happening in the real world. In the real world, these people are exploited, but have no other businesses in that area competing for their employment. There are many reasons why this could be.

 

It's morally right because no force is being involved.

 

And again, your definition of the word is insufficient. Your definition allows for the justification of taking advantage of people by way of exploitation, coercion, really just straight up manipulation. This is never morally acceptable.

 

If you don't mind, could you please post your responses to all my corporation stuff in the Capitalism vs. Statism thread? It's not really related to the topic anymore.

 

If it’s here, I’ll respond to it until a mod tells me not to. I will probably venture into your Cvs.S thread when I find some time to get caught up on it, not just gonna jump in without reading the whole thing.

 

That's a double standard; why is it bad to help yourself at the cost of other people, but it's good to help other people at the cost of yourself?

 

One involves taking something you’re not entitled to, the other involves giving something of yourself, a personal choice. There’s literally no double standard therein.

 

Unless, of course, you choose for it to come at a cost to yourself, but then that's your decision and that your value that you're pursuing.

 

Yes, it needs to be the individual’s decision. We do not have the right to force others to renounce their own well-being for others.

Then that's not really altruism, is it?

 

In the sense of the straight-up philosophical view that one completely denounces themselves and instead focuses on everyone else, I suppose not. However, just as there are varying degrees of selfishness, there are varying degrees of altruism.

 

But he did often get stuff wrong, like how he said we thought with our hearts and how we only have five senses.

 

But he happened to be right about a lot. In this case, applying his “mean” idea to helping others while holding onto our individuality is accurate. We can’t lose ourselves, and we can’t ignore others. To be happy, truly happy, we need people around us we genuinely care about, and who genuinely care about us. We can’t look out for our own self-interests exclusively if we want to be happy.

 

But my point is that the conditions in which the fetus survives entails no rights.

 

The fact that it is living means it will have rights on some level, the fact that it is a developing human being means it has the basic right to survive.

 

To say that the fetus has the right to life would mean to say that it has the right to live inside a woman without her permission.

 

Which would only be relevant if the fetus made a conscious decision to live there, which it didn’t. It’s an unavoidable and natural part of life.

 

If it has rights, that means the government has to protect those rights and force the woman to carry it to the full term.

 

It means the government makes it illegal for a doctor to kill it.

 

That means that the woman's body doesn't belong to herself, but to the government to dispose in any way it sees fit. It means she lives by permission, not right.

 

But that’s not what it means. It means that we acknowledge that there are two lives involved, and act accordingly. This existence, this dependence on another for survival does not go away at birth. In fact, it increases, because now the nutrition the baby requires is not transferred to it naturally, more effort must be taken to provide for it. You cannot just abandon your baby. That is a right that, by your definition of the word, infringes on another right. And that’s normal, we cannot all get every single thing we want in life. We have to share. As a species, it’s not optional. You can say the fetus has the right to grow and develop the same way the rest of us did without saying the woman’s body isn’t hers, without implying it.

 

You think that it's a moral duty to help other people and to sacrifice yourself to others, which is pretty much altruism.

 

Nobody says you have to help other people or sacrifice yourself, but on an individual scale it is a genuinely good thing to do. On a grander scale, it’s a necessity for the survival of our species.

 

We don't really disagree on the definition of life, per se; we disagree on the fetus' conditions of existence warrant rights.

 

Yeah. and we may just have to agree to disagree on that once and for all.

 

But that's selfishness to do something nice for someone else because you like to do that and you think it will pay off in the end, isn't it.

 

It’s not who’s desire it is that makes an action selfish, it’s what the desire is for. There are selfish desires, and there are desires that are utterly selfless.

 

Hey look at this, after 2 weeks or so my philosophy that you won't agree due to moral reasoning stands true.

 

Wouldn’t be much of a debate otherwise.

[Magamis]

I know this has nothing to do with the main topic, but I hate when people tell you that you should've been aborted at birth. It's a horrible thing to say to a person. I'm also against abortion.

[BTGBullseye]

So if scientists develop a way to remove the child from the mother's womb without killing the fetus and then allow it to grow to childhood... Would you readily accept that option?

Very much so... It's not the separation from mother that I'm opposed to, just the murder of an innocent human being.

[Axeldeath]

So if scientists develop a way to remove the child from the mother's womb without killing the fetus and then allow it to grow to childhood... Would you readily accept that option?

Very much so... It's not the separation from mother that I'm opposed to, just the murder of an innocent human being.

 

That's good then I guess, I know of a lot of creationists that would disagree with you though. It being "un-natural" along with stem cell research etc.

[BTGBullseye]

That's good then I guess, I know of a lot of creationists that would disagree with you though. It being "un-natural" along with stem cell research etc.

Stem cell research isn't bad either, it's just that they keep aborting children to get the cells for most of the research. They can easily get stem cells of similar quality from the placenta/etc that comes during birth anyways, or even better ones from adult humans, all without killing anyone.

 

That, and they keep lying to you that fetal stem cells are "the best/only ones that can provide us with the right kind of stem cells".

[danielsangeo]

*cough* They don't keep aborting children to get the cells for most of the research. That's just flat out incorrect.

 

When IVF happens, they create multiple embryos because it's still an inexact science, so they create a bunch and then try to implant a couple to see if they'll 'take' (which leads to fun stuff as multiples when more than one 'takes'.) When that happens, there are excess embryos which are then either 'put on ice' or discarded.

 

Why can't we take stem cells from those that are, for all intents and purposes, dead anyway?

[BTGBullseye]

*cough* They don't keep aborting children to get the cells for most of the research. That's just flat out incorrect.

 

When IVF happens, they create multiple embryos because it's still an inexact science, so they create a bunch and then try to implant a couple to see if they'll 'take' (which leads to fun stuff as multiples when more than one 'takes'.) When that happens, there are excess embryos which are then either 'put on ice' or discarded.

 

Why can't we take stem cells from those that are, for all intents and purposes, dead anyway?

Show evidence please...

[danielsangeo]

http://www.physorg.com/news121446759.html

http://www.umich.edu/stemcell/faq/

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080128/embryos-discarded-during-ivf-create-stem-cell-lines.htm

 

I have more from the first page of Google for "ivf embryos discarded". If you want more, I can provide more, though.

[BTGBullseye]

http://www.physorg.com/news121446759.html

http://www.umich.edu/stemcell/faq/

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080128/embryos-discarded-during-ivf-create-stem-cell-lines.htm

 

I have more from the first page of Google for "ivf embryos discarded". If you want more, I can provide more, though.

None of that proves that first statement of yours.

 

*cough* They don't keep aborting children to get the cells for most of the research. That's just flat out incorrect.

Well?

[danielsangeo]

Wait, what?

 

From the first link:

"Human embryos that are discarded every day as medical waste from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics"

[BTGBullseye]

Wait, what?

 

From the first link:

"Human embryos that are discarded every day as medical waste from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics"

Yes, but they don't currently use them as the primary source of stem cells. They easily could, but don't.

[danielsangeo]

Yet, if we outlaw "embyronic stem cell research" as some wish we could do, then these embryos would simply perish without providing a benefit for anyone.

[BTGBullseye]

Yet, if we outlaw "embyronic stem cell research" as some wish we could do, then these embryos would simply perish without providing a benefit for anyone.

Never said anything about outlawing embryonic stem cell research... Using a stillborn for research would be perfectly acceptable IMO. Killing a living human child to get cells is not acceptable.

[danielsangeo]

I don't think anyone is suggesting "killing off a living child". What in the world......?!

 

Also, I never said YOU were for outlawing... I said that there are some that want to outlaw it...

[BTGBullseye]

I don't think anyone is suggesting "killing off a living child". What in the world......?!

Every pro-abortionist is...