A few points
1) Re:
Harvesting embryos--The only need for this would come from the commercial aspect; that is, the need to economize the process in order to increase profits. Deliberate fertilization and abortion for the purposes of comemrcial science is only unethical and immoral because we, as people, place a certain value on human life. For the record, the idea sickens me. But given twenty years of lessening the tragedy of abortion by putting the otherwise-discarded tissue to use for human benefit, we should be able to find ways to work around it. What about being able to clone the damn things? This, however, requires much work with source stem-cells. If one still has a problem with it, we can compare it to theories of warfare: we reap a greater benefit from this tragedy.
2) Re:
A_Believer--Stop inventing demons merely to have a shadow over which you might feel a sense of triumph. Until religious objectors stop holding back education and allow the rest of society to educate children on a number of issues--sex, drugs, crime, &c--the tragedy of abortion will continue to haunt us. Ne'er will we eliminate it totally--among the mass of Christian lore is one Kasdaye (Kesdeya or Kasdeja), a fallen angel who taught the practice of abortion to mankind. Certes, the angel fell, but it would appear that abortion is heavenly knowledge at least. According to Gustav Davidson's
A Dictionary of Angels, Kasdaye is among seven angels who led the apostate angels in
Enoch 1. The intervening centuries have done nothing to settle the issue of abortion, and in the meantime, the Christian echelon continues to call for the maintenance of conditions which seem demonstrably conducive to abortion. What's more important, then: keeping children ignorant of vice, or saving the unborn from abortion? In a fit of what I consider rare perspicacity, a supermodel (I believe Nikki Taylor) appearing on Maher's
Politically Incorrect several years ago related that, while people may think of her own morals however they choose, at least she did not fall into the trap that her religiously-educated friends fell into, ceasing their educations after high school and pumping out hungry mouths with little or no idea of how to support and educate them.
3) Re:
...willing to kill a child...--On the one hand, I won't deny the sense of relief felt when the burden of whether or not to abort was lifted from my girlfriend and I--no fetal heartbeat. To the other, let's take a good, cold look at the situation: I am only adopted because I was conceived too early for the
Roe v. Wade decision. At the time of my birth, abortion was a whole different matter, and had my mother chosen that route, it might have been by the coat-hanger. If we want to approach the idea of fetal viability, then I'll concede that my personal principle is that abortion ceases to be an option at that point. But otherwise, to invest in the potential of an embryonic mass of cells leads us back to Monty Python:
Every sperm is good, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets irate ... or something like that. Every sperm cell and every ovum has human potential, and you're not about to tell me a woman who menstruates is immoral.
4) Re:
...willing to kill a child to save your life from an illness...--See, this is what I talk about when I criticize redemptive religions when I say it makes people selfish. Who says this is about
one life? Alzheimer's, cancer, and a host of human mortalities may be averted. This bodes well for the human race in general. So it's not just about one person. Why do I aim at redemptive religion with this? Well, as long as you're worried about your own salvation, you're focusing on yourself. Those evil, world-minded infidels understand a little more about their place in the living scheme, and tend to look at what such a thing as stem cell research can offer the whole of humanity, as opposed to the redemptive concern for one's own self.
5) Re:
...willing to kill a child to save your life from an illness... (part 2)--Does anyone remember the "Bart's Comet" episode of
The Simpsons? Even if you haven't seen it, worry not, for the concept still works. But there's a great line in there from Moe Syszlak after the comet crisis ends happily:
Let's go burn down the observatory so this can never happen again! Of course, as they storm the museum of natural sciences, a dinosaur skeleton crashes down on Moe, who laments, "Oh, my back! I only hope medical science can cure me." To translate across to the present: Given the longstanding ethical quandaries facing scientists, I would propose to the anti-animal research people that they refuse any cancer treatment that was developed by animal testing; I would also propose that
A_Believer should, in the future, refuse any medical treatment that was developed by stem-cell research. If the cure is born of evil sin, then why would a person wish to reap its benefits?
thanx,
tiassa