Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Embryo ethics: 400,000 Bush Babies
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 18 (395347)
04-16-2007 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parasomnium
04-15-2007 6:26 PM


Speaking as a supporter of stem cell research, I see no contradiction in his moral stance. He sees those embryos as human beings at the same time that he sees there's nothing he can do to save those embryos except to violate other people's rights by forcing women to take in the embryos.
I consider myself a moral person. I think that I have a moral obligation to try to save a drowning person by jumping in to save him. Am I contradicting my moral stance if there's a drowning person, my hands are tied, and I refuse to force a bystander to jump in risking his life to save the drowning person?
If we must question somebody's moral (in)consistency, it would have to be the moral (in)consistency of fundamentalists not lining up to volunteer to be implanted with the already existing embryos and to adopt orphans.
Added by edit.
I find it hard to believe that someone who has always been so proud of his grasp of the English language and actually double checks everything for spelling and grammar accuracies actually misspelled the word "embryo" in the title.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 04-15-2007 6:26 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by obvious Child, posted 04-16-2007 1:22 AM Taz has replied
 Message 10 by Parasomnium, posted 04-16-2007 2:39 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 18 (395359)
04-16-2007 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by obvious Child
04-16-2007 1:22 AM


obvious writes:
True, however, if he had consistant beliefs, Bush would be for the banning of IVF methods as they destroy human life.
How does invitro fertilization destroy human life?
He may not be able to save those in the past, but he could save those in the future. This is essentially the same argument for banning abortion. The aborted are gone, a sunk cost but one can prevent future abortions.
Again, I see no contradiction in his public moral stance. Let me explain why.
I believe that gay people should have all the rights that us straights have. I believe that they should have be able to get married, express their love in public (hold hands, kiss, stuff like that), and talk about their loved ones the same as we do without being told "why can't you keep your disgusting lifestyle out of my face?" Afterall, people talk about their heterosexuality everytime they talk about their husbands, wives, kids, etc.
But that belief of mine belongs to a much larger issue: freedom of speech. I believe that we should be able to express our opinions without being quieted by the majority. The son of a bitch Fred Phelps ought to be able to express his anger and hate without being a target of a legislation. Racists should be able to express their bigotted opinions. All people should be able to express their opinions without fear of reprisal by the majority... as long as they don't directly harm anyone.
Yet, one of the questions that people who are applying to become a citizen of the United States is "Have you joined any organization, including the Communist Part, or become associated or connected therewith in anyway?" What the hell kind of question is that? Is being a communist illegal in this country? Are we still living during the Red Scare? Is McCarthyism not dead?
But at the same time as I despise such a question, I have not voiced that much against it. Why? Because I have decided to focus my attention on the particular freedom of speech of gay people and similar subjects. I simply not have the time to worry about every freedom of speech related issue that have and will ever exist. Am I, then, a hypocrite for not strongly voicing my objection of such a question on the citizenship application?
I'm sure if we dig deep enough we can find some obscure subject related to a person's known moral/political stance and proclaim hypocrisy.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by obvious Child, posted 04-16-2007 1:22 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Parasomnium, posted 04-16-2007 2:53 AM Taz has replied
 Message 12 by obvious Child, posted 04-16-2007 2:53 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 13 of 18 (395456)
04-16-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Parasomnium
04-16-2007 2:39 AM


Re: Sandel's argument is compelling
Parasomnium writes:
I found the argument Michael Sandel put forward in his article quite compelling: he said that though Bush doesn't want to fund stem cell research, he doesn't ban it either, and that's what he should do if he wants to be consistent in his position against it.
It's called political compromise. Bush wants to ban it, but at the same time he knows there is no chance in hell an outright ban of all future stem cell research would get past congress. So, he does the next best thing and take away the fundings.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Parasomnium, posted 04-16-2007 2:39 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-16-2007 4:48 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 18 (395458)
04-16-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Parasomnium
04-16-2007 2:53 AM


Re: Destroying human life
Parasomnium writes:
By first creating a surplus of blastocysts.
Yeah, I realized that right after I posted that message. Was also too lazy to go back and edit.
But my argument stands. Just because I am against something doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to address every topic under the sun that even remotely related to the issue.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Parasomnium, posted 04-16-2007 2:53 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 18 (395459)
04-16-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by obvious Child
04-16-2007 2:53 AM


obvious child writes:
I do not even understand the majority of your post as to how it relates to the subject.
Obviously, you just scanned through my posts rather than actually read them. The point I was trying to make was that just because I support free speech doesn't mean I'm going to go out and speak out about every free speech related topic under the sun.
Bush has made it blatently obvious that he is anti-abortion. I'm sure we can find plenty of subjects related to a subject related to a subject related to a subject related to a subject related to a particular issue about abortion that he has not addressed.
Now, the question is has Bush spoken out in favor of IVF? Has he tried to pass a bill through congress giving tax breaks to people who have undergone IVF? If he hasn't even spoken out in favor or against IVF, then at the very best we could only say that he hasn't addressed the issue yet. I would go as far as calling him a hypocrite on an issue he hasn't even said anything about.
After years of cursing Bush to the very depth of hell, I can't believe I'm actually trying to defend the guy.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by obvious Child, posted 04-16-2007 2:53 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by obvious Child, posted 04-16-2007 7:24 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 17 of 18 (395468)
04-16-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dan Carroll
04-16-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Sandel's argument is compelling
Dan Carroll writes:
I'll lay down hard money that Bush doesn't give a crap about it one way or the other, but knows that making it a political issue will generate votes.
I've been saying this for years. Bush and his ilks always manage to come up with one bullshit issue after another to generate votes from the fundamentalists and evangelicals. After all, fundamentalism and evangelical christians are the fastest growing christian groups in the united states. In fact, I'm willing to put hard money down betting that Bush and his ilk won last time because they managed to rally up enough christians to demonize gay people.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-16-2007 4:48 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024