adult stem cells, Artificial Reproduction, Assisted Reproduction, Bioethics, cloning, embryonic stem cell, embryonic stem cells, ethics for sale, eugenics, In vitro fertilization, IVF, law, legislation, medical ethics, politics, reproductive technology, research ethics, stem cell research, stem cells

Ethical correctness is not extreme

Besides abortion, destructive embryo research, and complete sexual freedom for teens, I wonder how many other moral issues are judged, “Regardless of its ethical correctness . . .”? As it is, I wouldn’t want someone that goes around acting “regardless of ethical correctness” for my doctor or even an employee.

The ethical correctness is the point.

Human life should not be intentionally and electively ended by humans. There are no “human non-persons.” There are all sorts of classifications of humans who can be put in harm’s way due to poor judgment or the intentional actions of other humans. (human females, human Jews, human Negros, human Chinese, human non-citizens, human minors, human felons and . . .)

It isn’t necessary to use the term “sacred.” All societies prohibit the killing of some humans. They all act as though human life is sacred. It’s just that some have different definitions of “human.” Females aren’t fully human in some Islamic countries. Black men and women were not considered fully human – or were at least “non-person” humans, in the UK and the US in the past.

However, with what we know empirically about embryology, taxonomy and causation, there are no criteria for the limiting of personhood among living human organisms that cannot be used against currently legally protected human persons – to redefine them as “human non-persons” available for killing, harvesting and/or enslaving.

In fact, insisting that one human is more equal when it comes to the right not to be killed than another is simply a matter of personal opinion. Unless there’s some verifiable, repeatable, consistent evidence I’m not aware of.

That is why the same people are in favor of stem cell research that is not destructive and against destruction of embryos created extracorporeally. That’s why so many married evangelicals feel comfortable using non-abortifacient contraceptives, but would never abort the results of “contraceptive failure.” Because to cause fertilization by intention or even to risk conception by the act that is known to enable fertilization is to engage in actions that can put your own children in harm’s way. (Look up the old law on digging holes and the responsibility of the digger to cover it and to pay restitution if anyone falls in)

All humans are created with the right not to be killed and the right not to be enslaved. It doesn’t matter whether she is frozen in Albany, New York, USA or whether she wears a headscarf in Bangladesh. She has the right not to be killed and society should protect her equally with others.

As to abstinence – how many societies do you know that encourage early onset of sexual activity, outside of marriage? And what is the result in teen pregnancies, unplanned pregnancies, and STD’s? I hear the UK’s numbers are worsening despite not being plagued with abstinence-only sex ed. Who’s happy?

About bnuckols

Conservative Christian Family Doctor, promoting conservative news and views. (Hot Air under the right wing!)


One thought on “Ethical correctness is not extreme

  1. >I only intended to set asside the issue of ethical correctness for the purpose of that arguement :> This is what I get for posting at 2AM.

    Posted by Suricou Raven | July 19, 2006, 1:03 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

If the post is missing: take the “www.” out of the url

@bnuckols Twitter




%d bloggers like this: