July 14, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:A propos of last week's abortion post, a very good article on the fraught ethics of harvesting stem cells from fetuses conceived in order to cure a fatally ill sibling.
Posted by Jane Galt at July 14, 2003 4:37 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksThe President’s enemies are getting desperate. The odds are very high (perhaps 80%) that he will be reelected barring a national disaster. Moreover, they are betting the ranch that we will never find the so-called smoking gun. That is not a wise thing to do! After all, we have only been in Iraq for a few months. We are probably going to uncover a lot of shocking revelations. These folks are likely to soon look ridiculous---and will be haunted by their current statements.
Why is this occurring? The number one reason is Howard Dean. He is pushing the Democrat Party to the far left of the political spectrum. I am utterly convinced that the majority of the other candidates would be more sensible if Dean was not in the race.
Please disregard the above comments. Alas, I should be more careful in the future with my cut and pasting.
WRT harvesting stem cells from fetuses:
I guess this just dosen't strike me as much of a dilemma. Sure, an abortion performed for a reason like that is distasteful to a lot of people, but when you look at it in context - the end result is to save a child's life - it seems to me that abortions of this type ought to be of the least objectionable sort, rather than a more-objectionable variant which requires special restriction.
I read this article as more of a dynamist's morality tale about how the law has trouble keeping up with real life.
If I may take this argument a step further...?
Although you can argue that possession is 9/10ths of the law, I think the development of use for genetic material is going to seriously affect abortion rights at some point: a lawsuit will be brought asserting the father's right to control the destiny of the genetic material he provided, which will call into question the woman's exclusive right to the decision to abort or carry the child to term.
I admit this debate may be going on in circles I don't frequent, but I've not seen it mentioned anywhere, and no one seems interested in engaging the subject. Any idea why?
Comments are Closed.