This is only because the Roman Catholic Church has made the preposterous argument that most stem cells are harvested from the products of abortion and therefore, women are getting abortions they otherwise would not in the interests of science. Not every "conservative" Justice buys this silliness, and I think it's unfair to suggest that conservatives, generally, are anti-science.
I dont know the reason nor do I care...I made my decision based on what ive read and heard on the news...republicans are against stem cells for abortion reasons and liberals are for it...I thinks its more than just the catholic religion against it.....and I think generally conservative justices are more against it than for...and certainly more so that liberal judges...
You dont need to pay puppets
You have to understand how the Corpocracy is set up and maintained
Look at ALL the US presidents that were allowed to run for the presidency especially since the end of WW2?
Havent you noticed how impotent your vote is every 4 years?
Scientific and medical issues should be decided based on the scientific and medical factors involved. For example, cloning animals like dolly showed that clones have potentially serious medical problems as a result of the cloning process and genetic material used. Full human cloning should be banned because of the high potential for harm to the clone and lack of potential medicals benefits even if it proves successful. What is most important is that such issues be examined with facts and logic, not fear and prejudice.
My positions is that the supreme courts, including constitutional courts, should be appointed through popular vote by the people with a temporal tenure (so not for life... 1-4 years, you pick). The way it currently is, there is no doubt that you will have people appointed to the supreme court because of their political affiliations (Elena Kagan comes to mind).
Yes, many joined the RCC on the "O! Noes! Abortions are bad so stem cell research must be halted!" bandwagon. Bush II, among others.
But I wouldn't described most conservatives as anti-science, and I doubt stem cells will be a key to human cloning.
Why do you always try to put YOUR words in someones mouth....I never said anything like MOST conservatives are anti science nor did I say that stem cells were anything...I merely answered the thread question
I dont know the reason nor do I care...I made my decision based on what ive read and heard on the news...republicans are against stem cells for abortion reasons and liberals are for it...I thinks its more than just the catholic religion against it.....and I think generally conservative justices are more against it than for...and certainly more so that liberal judges...
Hey, that's American politics for you. SCOTUS is not so much a court as a super legislature.
You idealism is well taken but I prefer to be realistic.
Which sort of judges or Supreme Court justices would be more sympathetic to human cloning, stem cell research, or other sorts of bioethics issues? Liberal judges or conservative judges?
What do you all think?
Scientific and medical issues should be decided based on the scientific and medical factors involved. For example, cloning animals like dolly showed that clones have potentially serious medical problems as a result of the cloning process and genetic material used. Full human cloning should be banned because of the high potential for harm to the clone and lack of potential medicals benefits even if it proves successful. What is most important is that such issues be examined with facts and logic, not fear and prejudice.
I don't think there's anything remotely conservative about human cloning. It's a serious possibility in the future.
I don't think there's anything remotely conservative about human cloning. It's a serious possibility in the future.
That is reactionary nonsense. "full human cloning" or reproductive cloning as it is properly known, is the right of every person. It is not the business of government to ban reproductive cloning, for what ultimately amount to superstitious reasons.
If all your looking for is a better vegetable or cow thats one thing, but if you are looking for another Einstein or DiVinci that is quite another. The odds on reproducing an exact duplicate of any famous person are astronomical. They would have to have the same experiences and socialization and learning as the original. They would have to for lack of a better term be able to exactly duplicate the life of the original. that is almost impossible.
Some people also after watching to much TV that a clone starts out as a grown human. No it starts out as a baby like everyone else.
So the likely hood of this becoming a driving force in society is imho remote.
Current animal cloning methods have an unacceptably high rate of problems. It is unethical to deliberately create humans with a high probability of crippling defects. It is not a matter of superstition, it is valid medical ethics. Reproductive cloning should be banned until such a time at which it can performed with an acceptable risk of complications.
Agreed on both counts. What are your personal thoughts about the issue of human cloning?
I have no idea why you believe my post was nonresponsive, dear.
You said:
ng to her
And I disagree.
No argument here, but that just postpones the inevitable. Sooner or later, we'll be faced with this issue.
That postponement could end up being extremely long. Its very hard to iron out the bugs of human cloning if ethical restrictions on human testing prevent standard research techniques.
Even one known human clone would blow most people's minds, and doubtless somewhere, there's an egomaniac with the money to buy himself a duplicate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?