Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SteelBlue
Had Bush used this as his reasoning, I'd have less of a problem with his veto. But he made it pretty clear that he vetoed because he felt there was something morally wrong with expanding to new lines. That's where he loses me and many other moderates. How is being used for research any worse than being frozen for eternity or eventually being "destroyed". Those who argue that it was a veto in favor of life make no sense at all in my opinion.
|
What if a point came where we figured out how to unthaw all those people who had themselves frozen while they were terminally ill, but knew definitively that there was no way to cure them. Would it be okay to wake them up and experiment on them or harvest their organs since they were going to remain frozen anyway and maybe be eventually destroyed?
If you think that an unimplanted embryo is a person, then I don't know what the distinction is. I will cop out by saying that I don't know, and doubt frankly, whether an unimplanted embryo is a person so in my world one is human and one may ot may not be.
What think ye?