« A Tactic You Shouldn't Use | Main | Zeitgeist & Other Myths »

March 11, 2009

Comments

Melinda, before concluding that the distinction is perverse, you might consider a few questions:

What would be the purpose behind cloning human beings for reproductive purposes?

Would that purpose carry as much weight as the purposes behind therapeutic cloning?

Does reproductive cloning have any troublesome consequences that do not accompany therapeutic cloning?

This is actually worse than cloning for life. It is an incredibly evil proposition to hold and yet he along with the rest of the main stream media holds this up as a virtue. Do people not consider to any depth their own positions?

What would be the purpose behind cloning human beings for reproductive purposes?
- The same purpose for fertilizing any egg on a petri dish and implanting the zygote in a womb - to get a woman pregnant.

Would that purpose carry as much weight as the purposes behind therapeutic cloning?
- Killing a human zygote (a nascent human being) is no more justifiable than killing a human being at any other stage of development for "therapeutic" gene harvesting. The purposes behind carrying a child to gestation are as valuable as life itself.

Does reproductive cloning have any troublesome consequences that do not accompany therapeutic cloning?
- I am no genetic scientist; reproductive cloning might involve physical difficulties or risks for the mother (I am no advocate of this practice). Therapeutic cloning has only one guaranteed result - ending the life of a nascent human being.

Why are so many so committed to this practice when all of the viable leads have come from non-destructive stem cell research?

Good question to end with Sage S, the culture of death, seems to be alive. It's evidenced in proactive efforts to end life as often as is possible in as many stages and situations as are possible. It looks like a conspiracy to me. ;-)

Women discard unfertilized eggs at the rate of about one a month for 30-40 years. Is a blastocyst created by this massively unnatural method, or even plain old in vitro fertilization for that matter, human if it is never implanted? As many as 60-80% of fertilized eggs do not attach to the uterine wall or remain attached or functional 7 days past fertilization. If the genetic material in a woman's egg is replaced with genetic material from a cell elsewhere in her body and that blastocyst is harvested to create treatments or replacement parts for the woman what sin has been committed?

The comments to this entry are closed.