MyLibertopia

Welcome to MyLibertopia Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Nameht

Stem Cell Research

It is immoral to perform stem cell research.  Starbuck recently commented on Bush "imposing his moral view."  She might be right, the morals he holds are not in alignment with everyone and he is forcing his moral values on us.  However, stem cell research is immoral; the forced funding through taxation of stem cell research is wrong.  I don't want to have to pay for it.

Property rights exist.  If you don't think so, give me your wallet the next time we are together.  Why not?  You have no right to your property.  I think they do exist, so I will not give you my wallet.  The question becomes does a person own his own body.  We would all think it wrong to force anyone to do something against their will with their body.  In fact, bodily crimes are the most heinous: murder and rape.  Forcing someone to do anything with their voluntary agreement is wrong.  So it seems to reason we own our own bodies, they are not in possession of some authority.

If we own our own bodies, then by what right do our creators have to dispose of us in anyway they want?  If an adult dies and gives his body to science, he has entered into a voluntary agreement to have his property experimented with.  It doesn’t matter that he is dead.  I’m intentionally staying away from the morality of how he died because I’m avoiding the abortion debate.

None one would expect our property rights to cease to exist after we die.  Imagine dying and people reading about your death and coming and looting everything you had.  Some say, it doesn’t matter you are already dead.  I have nothing against that if you made a voluntary decision to do that.  Some say, they aren’t developed enough to make that choice.  That is horrible.  I couldn’t imagine taking invalids and harvesting organs because they didn’t say “no”.  They aren't developed enough to make that decision.

They are using bodies without consent of the owners of that body and that is immoral.  I don’t have a single problem with adult stem cell research; the donors freely made that choice.  Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone should be forced to pay for anything against their will.  It doesn’t matter what their drives their will.

 

Published Friday, August 04, 2006 10:07 PM by nameht

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

Starbuck said:

He did not veto the bill because of FUNDING. He vetoed the bill because of his own personal moral beliefs. Since my money is being taken anyway, I'd rather it pay for stem cell research that could possibly cure the breast cancer that I am at a much higher heriditary risk of getting as opposed to an unwinnable 'war' on terrorism.
August 4, 2006 11:08 PM
 

Buffy said:

What do you feel is immoral about performing the research? Or do you feel it is immoral to use tax dollars to pay for it?
August 4, 2006 11:09 PM
 

nameht said:

It is definitely immoral to force people to pay for something they don't want.

One person can't dispose of another person property without their consent.  The body and the cells within are the property owned by the person.  This legislation was directly related to non-adult stem cell research.  It would be impossible to get consent from a little person (not midgets).

Starbuck, let's focus on our money NOT being taken away to start with.  Then you could voluntarily give all the money you wanted to a company working with voluntarily donated stem cells.  You are already giving up when you use the argument, "They are taking it anyway, so use it how I want."
August 5, 2006 4:12 PM
 

Starbuck said:

Unfortunately you missed my entire point. My point was that his decision was based on his moral opinion about the research. He has no right to enforce his morals on everyone else.

But your comments lead to a good question. Who can own property? Can an embryo have property rights? As a woman, I would say that what has to survive off of me as a parasite does not have property rights.
August 7, 2006 5:08 PM
 

Buffy said:

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

-Benjamin Franklin
August 8, 2006 12:19 PM
 

nameht said:

Motives are very difficult to prove, and besides, motives mean very little for judging an action.  Even if his own words justify the action under his morals, you still must judge the action according to its consequences.  And the action he passed was taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research is prohibited.  I really don't care what the reason.  If he said, Santa Claus told him to prohibit robbery, great!  I support the no robbery for my moral principles.  I wouldn't care he is receiving divine inspiration from a leprachan or an invisible man.

Everyone owns property, starting with their own body.  You as a women can say that, and for this discussion I will accept that, but pro-choicers universally admit once the new genetic material leaves a woman's body, the cells get their full human rights.  I guess if a woman wanted to have experiments done inside her womb, I'll go along with that, but not after the genetic material leaves the womb, either through birth or through abortion or through miscarriage.
August 9, 2006 3:23 PM
 

nameht said:

I'll simplify Franklin's statement.

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain except death."  

Because if you don't pay your taxes, the government will come and kill you.
August 9, 2006 3:24 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit
Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems