Ethics? We’ve Got Ethics

But these ghouls don’t.

Oh yes, we can turn this into an endless discussion about how adult stem cells have turned up amazing discoveries and, yes, cures at this point whereas embryonic stem cells have, so far, only contributed to our knowledge of just how horrible tumors we can create. We can also babble on for about three hundred comments about the simple fact that if embryonic stem cell research was so promising, then how come companies very much vested in their bottom lines haven’t been interested in throwing money at it, but this is about more than that.

It’s about this concept that doesn’t mean squat in a “progressive” society: Just what will we accept in the name of “progress?”

I mean, sure, from a utilitarian point of view, it would have been a horrible waste to just murder those Jooos and burn their remains when so many useful lamp shades could be made of their skins. And why just throw away their personal possessions after you’d gassed them when those shoes, glasses, gold teeth etc. could be put to such good use? And why would you want to spend hundreds of thousands on prolonging the life of a senior citizen who’d never be a net contributor to the treasury when that same amount of money might help a dozen younger subjects get back to the production lines?

So I guess using blended fetuses to slow down the aging of your skin isn’t all that bad either.

Unless you’re a human being with values, that is.

Scratch a “progressive”, find a Nazi.

You can kill them, or you can wait for them to decide that you’re a net loss to the “common good” at which point they’ll kill you.

Your choice.

Not that there’s anything wrong with peaceably going to the camps.

After all… “Arbeit Macht Frei”, Nein?

Thatisall.

56 comments

  1. 51
    Cricket says:

    Fifth columnist made my comment for me about ‘wasted man spew.’ There are millions of sperm in ejaculate that don’t get a chance to implant if the conditions aren’t right. So, basically, sex is a waste of time because of the chance that they could all die. Why would the Creator make millions? Because He also knew that women only produce one to three eggs at a time. While I would tend to agree with your viewpoint, given the conditions in the lab and the conditions in the body, it doesn’t hurt to have a backup, which is one of the reasons why more eggs are taken. JUST IN CASE. With regard to in vitro fertilization, life would not begin until implantation in the mother’s body, not when the egg was fertilized.

  2. 52

    My turn :em96:

    Mandrake sez:

    So one woman’s intention of wanting to birth a baby trumps researchers’ intentions to cure Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or other degenerative diseases?

    yes, it’s the mother’s call…..that trumps the mandate of some soul-less bureaucrat or so-called lawmaker every time in my book.

    It’s called throwing a zygote. And if we accept the argument that life begins at conception, then why aren’t we fighting to save all these “thrown” babies? And please don’t respond with the argument that it is “natural” to reject an imperfect fertilized ovum. We would fight like hell to save a baby born with a natural congenital heart defect. If the zygote and the birthed baby are equal, why aren’t we demanding that medical researchers do everything they can to save these unborn babies?

    it’s a simple case of nature vs. “choice”. Throwing a zygote (never heard that term before) IS a natural occurrence. Unfortunately so are miscarriages and stillborns, they are a natural process whereas things like egg harvesting and artificial insemination and abortion are products of mans tampering with the natural cycle of things….see the difference?

    Here’s another issue for debate: what if we know that a baby will be born with bilateral renal agenesis, i.e., no kidneys? This can be diagnosed in the womb and most often the baby is stillborn. However, even if the baby is born alive, the chance of survival more than a day or two after birth is zero. Do we allow the mother to terminate the pregnancy, or do we force her to carry it to term, even knowing that the baby will suffer horribly?

    “WE” shouldn’t force her to do anything…..no lawmaker, no LEO, no judge, no advocacy group, no lawyer, no clergyman, and no politician should have a say in the matter at all…..it’s HER decision, and hers alone. You know……it’s her “right to choose”…….get it?

    What if the disease isn’t diagnosed until the last trimester?

    let the mother decide.

  3. 53
    Cricket says:

    Jaybear says:

    let the mother decide.

    What about her partner, if she has one and he cares?

  4. 54

    Cricket sez:

    What about her partner, if she has one and he cares?

    my mistake Cricket, the husband should have a say as well…..

  5. 55
    LC HJ Caveman82952 says:

    You’re a beautiful human being, Cricket…… :em04: :em69:

  6. 56
    Cricket says:

    Awww…thanks. :em93:

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.