Clary wrote on the Never Ending Conversation Game-
Quote:and hoping that the stem cell research bill goes through.
I can understand someone having an aesthetic objection to bestiality but that is merely a matter of personal taste such as preferring Prince to Mozart.
But what is the ethical objection to bestiality?
Is it not the case that the ethical objection has always been based upon a felt risk of possibly harm to the human species, which is what all ethics are based upon, from mixing animal and human cells. Once they are mixed the ethical objection to bestiality vanishes and as sheep don't keep demanding presents and the dining room redecorating it could be that women are really on a par with men and, like them, will have to shift for themselves.
If those supporting this new Embryology Bill are allowed to justify their position by saying what it "could" do or "might lead to" why can't their opponents have equal credibilty when they offer suggestions of other alternatives for what "could" happen or what the mixing of animal and human cells "might lead to"?
And these children who "might" or "could" be "cured" by this new research, unheard of in the whole history of mankind, "could" very well be quite happy as they are. How do we know they are not happy. Do we just declare them to be unhappy. I've seen many children with these conditions and have often wondered why they might prefer to be like the rest of us and queue up at the job centre to be directed to the chocolate factory to put the little blob on the top of the walnut whip for 8 hours a day.
Couldn't we spend the money this research will cost and which only "could" bring any useful results on making these children happier and not treating them as if there is something wrong with them. And how do we know what they will be like when they are "cured" if ever they are? Will they be airline pilots or sewage workers?
The only thing guaranteed here is the jobs and research funding. No "cures" are guaranteed. The "cure" for dwarfism turned out to be a very sorry mess. Much,much worse than the dwarfism. Newsnight covered it once. Just the once. I think it did Paxman's head in.
And the research funding "might" be better used in other areas.
Crash barriers on motorways save some lives and end others.
We might end up not knowing what a human being is. Make that a matter of aesthetics and we are really in the ****.
If they pass this bill I will think they have all gone mad and when we can see them lining their underwear with a thin brown sludge at the idea that we might get to see their past expenses claims when they weren't excercising their control of fiscal policy as they do when it comes to looking after these kids with the conditions they are claiming they "might" cure you can easily understand that they might very well have already done so.
Their desire to remove cigarettes from shop displays certainly points in that direction.
It looks to me that they have a need to be up and doing to avoid facing up to being completely mad like compulsive handwashers. They have compulsive legislationitis.
The hubris problem is widespread. It isn't confined to Mr Blair.
Shame for dog - good for you! :wink:
