Thursday, July 20, 2006

Dumb Question

Why is it that when a frozen embryo is killed, that's immoral, but when an innocent child is killed in a war zone, that's collateral damage?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why are we reluctant to execute a death row inmate when there is a chance of innocence, yet we have no problem with abortion when we have yet to establish at what point life begins? Should we err on the side of safety in both instances in order to preserve life?

Ayatollah Mugsy said...

Perhaps we could compromise by using only Iraqi embryos for stem cell research.

thehomelessguy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
thehomelessguy said...

Instead of trying to disqualify the question, why don't you try answering it?

Anonymous said...

Collateral damage is just that - the unfortunate and unintended consequences of taking up arms.

Using an embryo for medical research when no one has defined when life begins is an intentional action taken against an organism that may or may not be "life".

JMG said...

Anonymous (#1), perhaps erring on the side of life, as our president has said in the past, is a good idea.

Homelessguy, if I had wanted to disqualify the question, I wouldn't have bothered asking it. Perhaps you have the answer?

Tony Arnold said...

Because we would rather spend time debating an unanswerable question (exact moment of life) vs. taking responsibility for our decisions and actions (waging war)?

thehomelessguy: maybe JMG has an answer but what to hear our's unbiased before sharing hers?

Tony

Justin said...

I think its important to note that GWB only banned government funded stem cell research. He knows its a tricky moral question, and doesn't want to go down the road of the government harvesting embryos for research.

War is a bad thing. In all situations. However, I think the difference in a war killing a child is that the target is not the child. If someone views an embryo as a child (not saying I necessarily agree with that idea) then they would say that is 1st degree murder rather than manslaughter. Its the intent. We don't intend for cars to kill innocent people, but they do. Should we ban cars?

I would love a world without war... but as long as there is sin, there will be war, and there will be civilian casualties. The idea is to limit those who want to make war, who, conincidentally enough, have little regard for innocent life

Ayatollah Mugsy said...

Actually, Bush allows federally funded research on a limited number of useless stem cell lines with damaged DNA.