Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard
But... I will just touch on something that I hear quite often - that it's because the future life – human or child - will be lost. The potential life.
People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time. It seems to me one of those crazy philosophical arguments where it's almost impossible to find consistency. Unless the parents are having sex 24/7, then they're denying a future life - many future lives in fact. Even by having Child X, they're denying life to potential twins Y and Z. The argument that we shouldn't deny a future life it's child/adulthood seems to me to rest on incredibly shaky ground. Even if by some incredible feat, we turned into 24/7 baby-making machines, the resulting overpopulation would end up denying life - and quality of life - to many.
|
I went to Catholic high school and made this same point when they argued against contraception. I mean the Bible is full of things that were great ideas 2000 years ago but it doesn't adapt to modern times. If Jesus came back today and decreed jaywalking, wouldn't it be ridiculous if 2000 years from now, when we all fly through tubes and wish ourselves cross-country, if jaywalking was still 'immoral'? Sure it is a good idea today to not jaywalk but come on who knows what kind of interpretation that gets in 2000 years. I mean knowing Jesus if we told him that one dead fetus could equal 3 lives that were definitely dead anyway I think he would probably choose to save the 3 people? (well let's assume they're all cute little tykes)
The point is I think researchers want to not just say let's abort our way out of any health crisis but rather let's see what these cells are made of and why they work? Unforunately we get into that moral dilemma where in order to save an indeterminate amount of lives we have to sacrifice a few.