Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Monday, April 12, 2004
What Gives?
Not to harp on the abortion issue, but there are some inconsistencies in your previous posts which I would like explained to me. If, as you state, human life begins with conception-- and if, as you imply, wanton destruction of a brewing zygote therefore comprises an act of murder—how then does this reconcile with your previous post in which you defend IVF by saying:
“[IVF] can sometimes be medically necessary, or at least beneficial, in the case of gender-specific disease risks.”
As I'm sure you are aware, IVF necessitates the production and destruction of tens of conceptuses. Are you therefore defending murder as a “medically necessary, or at least beneficial” option for couples at risk of conceiving a handicapped infant? I’m curious as to how you would reconcile these apparently paradoxical viewpoints.
Furthermore, you state that viability is a flawed standard by which to judge the legitimacy of abortion as it is prone to downward adjustment as scientific progress is made. However, one could well make the case that human conception will itself be one day subject to similar forces. For example, mouse-human transgenic chimeras are commonplace these days in molecular biology research laboratories. At what percentage of “human” DNA base pairs would you then accord such a creature civil rights. Granted, chimeras today may have at the most a handful of human transgenes, but who knows what the future might hold.
Additionally, human cloning technology is fast becoming a reality. I think we would agree that within our lifetimes, human clones will be raised from somatic cells. Like a developing zygote then, those dermal epithelial cells that we so callously scratch from our crotches will contain the full potentiality for development of a human being, given the appropriate circumstances. Will scratching one’s crotch then become a capital offense?
Yes, I know, sounds ridiculous (is ridiculous in fact) but I’m simply trying to make the point that even the seemingly impervious concept of conception is not immune to the encroaching power of science and technology.
Recently I heard on the radio that the Bush administration is standing behind a bill that would make murder of a pregnant female, even a female who does not know that she is pregnant, an automatic double homicide. Talk about ridiculous. If this is the case then isn’t the next logical step to say that anything that interferes with implantation and development of the fetus is a punishable crime? Considering that fully 50% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion our criminal justice system may not be able to handle the overflow of young women.
|
Not to harp on the abortion issue, but there are some inconsistencies in your previous posts which I would like explained to me. If, as you state, human life begins with conception-- and if, as you imply, wanton destruction of a brewing zygote therefore comprises an act of murder—how then does this reconcile with your previous post in which you defend IVF by saying:
“[IVF] can sometimes be medically necessary, or at least beneficial, in the case of gender-specific disease risks.”
As I'm sure you are aware, IVF necessitates the production and destruction of tens of conceptuses. Are you therefore defending murder as a “medically necessary, or at least beneficial” option for couples at risk of conceiving a handicapped infant? I’m curious as to how you would reconcile these apparently paradoxical viewpoints.
Furthermore, you state that viability is a flawed standard by which to judge the legitimacy of abortion as it is prone to downward adjustment as scientific progress is made. However, one could well make the case that human conception will itself be one day subject to similar forces. For example, mouse-human transgenic chimeras are commonplace these days in molecular biology research laboratories. At what percentage of “human” DNA base pairs would you then accord such a creature civil rights. Granted, chimeras today may have at the most a handful of human transgenes, but who knows what the future might hold.
Additionally, human cloning technology is fast becoming a reality. I think we would agree that within our lifetimes, human clones will be raised from somatic cells. Like a developing zygote then, those dermal epithelial cells that we so callously scratch from our crotches will contain the full potentiality for development of a human being, given the appropriate circumstances. Will scratching one’s crotch then become a capital offense?
Yes, I know, sounds ridiculous (is ridiculous in fact) but I’m simply trying to make the point that even the seemingly impervious concept of conception is not immune to the encroaching power of science and technology.
Recently I heard on the radio that the Bush administration is standing behind a bill that would make murder of a pregnant female, even a female who does not know that she is pregnant, an automatic double homicide. Talk about ridiculous. If this is the case then isn’t the next logical step to say that anything that interferes with implantation and development of the fetus is a punishable crime? Considering that fully 50% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion our criminal justice system may not be able to handle the overflow of young women.
|
