has an interesting question. We are discussing the morality of embryonic stem cell research:
"What is confusing here is that according to your position, it seems like the primary crime was committed during IVF. The stem cell issue looks like what to do with the bodies. It seems like the focus should be on the primary act that caused the harm. I don't mean that this would justify the secondary issue; it would not, but it does seem secondary."
I will make this as clear as I can.
Harvesting human babies, even small ones, for medical research cheapens human life. Allowing anyone to make a profit, or find it in their self-interest, in an act which cheapens human life is imprudent.
It is a question of incentives. Abortion mills, Planned Parenthood and so on, are not charity organizations. They make a profit from their acts. They buy houses and send their kids to college and so on. It is in their best interest to continue the practice of infanticide, and to expand the practice. The Abortionists have become a faction and a politic power in their own right, and influenced the laws and customs of this nation.
So, here. This stem cell research is worthless, scientifically speaking, or at least not as promising as non-destructive stem cell research. Allowing embryo stem cell research will create a faction with a monetary self-interest in continuing the practice, and expanding it.
This is true even if the primary practice of in-vitro fertilization cannot be stopped.
"I caught the last 2/3 of Apocalypto on late night tv last night. I had avoided it when it first came out because of the ultra-violence. I just don't like watching it anymore. Anyway, there is a scene where the main character escapes from the human sacrifice guys. He comes across a mass grave of the previous victims. I was thinking about this thread. It seems to me the stem cell debate (from your position) is like arguing whether or not to use the bodies to fertilize the fields and ignores the human sacrifice itself."
I will grant you the question but not the conclusion. If I lived in a society that produced mass graves of innocent corpses, I would, as a civilized man, as a Christian, demand the bodies be decently buried and decently treated with respect. The argument would be the same as I use here: namely, that it is imprudent to create an incentive aimed at further dehumanization of the human race. Treating corpses as a raw material is the same as permitting cannibalism on the ground that it is unthrifty to let good meat go to waste. Once we start plowing the dead into the ground as fertilizer, once we stop treating the dead with respect, once we treat human beings as raw materials, it creates a faction with a powerful incentive ever further to erode the bulwark of laws and customs surrounding human dignity. Once that bulwark is down, the weak are livestock for the strong. ( Collapse )