Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23132)	7/7/2006 10:49:42 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541582

My being respectful of them and their position has always been somewhat challenged by their apparent lack of equivalent energy in taking in the children who would otherwise be aborted. I agree. And their failure to address birth control issues. At least for the non-Catholics.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23132)	7/7/2006 1:32:47 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

The Catholic Church does condemn the use of in vitro fertilization, FWIW. They also run maternity homes and adoption agencies. Their positions are entirely consistent. For non-Catholics, I think the stem cell argument is more generally a slippery slope argument -- right now the stem cells come from fertilized eggs that would be discarded anyway, but where's the brake on fertilizing eggs just to make more stem cells? And if we agree to fertilize eggs just to make more stem cells, why not grow embryos just to harvest organs? And if we grow embryos just to harvest organs, why not grow full term babies in order to harvest their organs? And if we grow full term babies in order to harvest their organs, why not adults? Is there, in fact, an ethical line to be drawn, and if so, what is it? I say this with trepidation, because I don't want to irritate you, I am just pointing out that there is an internal logic (which you may or may not agree with). (I think the dividing line is easy to bandy about, Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, don't treat human beings as objects, but it's considered culturally acceptable to treat human beings as objects all over the world. Not everybody agrees with Kant. And anyway, what's "human" in this context?)

To: Lane3 who wrote (23132)	7/11/2006 11:14:38 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

Most of my reply to this is already contained in my reply to another post. Message 22612778 But there was one issue in this post that didn't fit in with the other reply. My being respectful of them and their position has always been somewhat challenged by their apparent lack of equivalent energy in taking in the children who would otherwise be aborted. I think you greatly understate the energy that many abortion opponents put in to this. Adoption is strongly encouraged, and supported by just about all pro-life organizations, who also run or support crisis pregnancy centers and "homes for unwed mothers".