As a writer and a passionate supporter of stem cell research–who was present at President Bush’s historic 2006 veto–I was moved enough to write a novel that captures the human emotions and high stakes on both sides of this conflict.
THE UNHOLY GRAIL is the first novel to take on the topic of stem cell research and how it affects human lives. The science in the novel is based on cutting-edge research currently being conducted at UC-Irvine.
If you’re interested, I invite you to check out my website:
As a writer and a passionate supporter of stem cell research–who was present at President Bush’s historic 2006 veto–I was moved enough to write a novel that captures the human emotions and high stakes on both sides of this conflict.
THE UNHOLY GRAIL is the first novel to take on the topic of stem cell research and how it affects human lives. The science in the novel is based on cutting-edge research currently being conducted at UC-Irvine.
If you’re interested, I invite you to check out my website:
Those opposed to stem cell research are superstitious fools who base their opinions on sentimentality rather than reason and cold hard facts.
Mostly true. Just remember that those that oppose the government funding of stem cell research are correct even though they usually are in opposition for the wrong reasons. The government should never support or oppose any type of scientific research assuming of course that nobody’s rights are being violated in the process.
*** Mod’s note ***
Discussion about government funding of science – in general, not just stem cells – has been split intoa separate topic. - sN
I am all for stem cell research and medical uses as long as the stem cells do not come from human embryo’s. When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed. The dignity and respect for man has been lost at that point. Men are not like cattle or penicillin that can just be harvested or slaughtered.
I am all for stem cell research and medical uses as long as the stem cells do not come from human embryo’s. When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed. The dignity and respect for man has been lost at that point. Men are not like cattle or penicillin that can just be harvested or slaughtered.
Fair enough. When it comes to something like stem cell research I concur that federal funding isn’t actually necessary to make it happen.
But the thing about science and scientific research is this: If you don’t do it, somebody else will. So if human embryonic stem cell research is outlawed in the US it WILL be conducted elswhere and if such research leads to new lifesaving/rehabilitating treatments that are effective, then those of us with enough money will go abroad to countries where such treaments are available.
Bear in mind that a human embryo is basically a ball of cells that are genetically human and its not rational to equate an embryo with a fully formed living person. What makes a person a person is a functioning brain(i.e. sentience).
But the thing about science and scientific research is this: If you don’t do it, somebody else will. So if human embryonic stem cell research is outlawed in the US it WILL be conducted elswhere and if such research leads to new lifesaving/rehabilitating treatments that are effective, then those of us with enough money will go abroad to countries where such treaments are available.
So, following your logic, since some countries have used orphans and the handicapped for medical research, you say it should be done here in the name of research also? Why not harvest organs and limbs from those individuals too for those that need it?
I am all for stem cell research and medical uses as long as the stem cells do not come from human embryo’s. When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed. The dignity and respect for man has been lost at that point. Men are not like cattle or penicillin that can just be harvested or slaughtered.
Based on your statement, I assume that you’re also against a woman’s right to an abortion. Is that correct?
So, following your logic, since some countries have used orphans and the handicapped for medical research, you say it should be done here in the name of research also? Why not harvest organs and limbs from those individuals too for those that need it?
Because orphans and the handicapped are sentient , whereas embryos are Not(neither are the brain dead).
I’d point out that unless a woman is doing it herself, she has no actual right to any medical procedure.
She most certainly does have a right to a medical procedure such as abortion (or any other one, for that matter) if she’s able to pay for it. Why didn’t you answer my original question?
Because orphans and the handicapped are sentient , whereas embryos are Not(neither are the brain dead).
Whether a being is sentient does not determine if it has rights. Using that as the standard, animals would have rights, which they do not. If you’re interested, this has been discussed very thoroughly in other threads on here.
Whether a being is sentient does not determine if it has rights. Using that as the standard, animals would have rights, which they do not. If you’re interested, this has been discussed very thoroughly in other threads on here.
I am interested…But if sentience does not determine if a being has rights, then WHAT does?
If another will provide a paid service of abortion, does a woman have the right to purchase an abortion?
If another will NOT provide the service, does she still have a right to have it done? And then, by whom?
Her right is to choose freely to contract for anything so long as it does not violate any rights of another individual.
She most certainly does have a right to a medical procedure such as abortion (or any other one, for that matter) if she’s able to pay for it. Why didn’t you answer my original question?
I wasn’t who you originally asked that question to.
I am pointing out that you don’t have a right to have a medical procedure because that implies an obligation on somebody else. It just isn’t a right. I’ll grant you that no person or government has a right to prohibit you from having a procedure you choose to have and can arrange to have done.
Since I don’t believe anyone can (or has yet to) make a valid case that the rights of a human embryo equal or supersede the rights of a human woman, then no one has a right to stop a woman from taking that action with a consenting doctor.
When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed.
What about manufacturing them, like gynoids and androids? I welcome in the Bionic Age. Farming humans, like with genetic engineering and advances later on, will be cool as fuck. All this really along the lines of what I think is like a Nietzschean sense of the overman.
I wasn’t who you originally asked that question to.
Oops.
I am pointing out that you don’t have a right to have a medical procedure because that implies an obligation on somebody else. It just isn’t a right. I’ll grant you that no person or government has a right to prohibit you from having a procedure you choose to have and can arrange to have done.
When you’re dealing with Objectivists on an Objectivist discussion board, I think you can generally assume that when people are talking about the “right to abortion”, they are simply using that as a shorthand for saying that a woman has a right to freely contract with a medical professional to provide her with those services, as long as she is able to pay for them. Obviously there is no “right” to force someone to provide an abortion.