towith: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] towith at 10:36pm on 15/03/2009 under
[Error: unknown template qotd]

Such oddly simplistic terms. If we define good as having a net-positive effect without damaging any non-voluntary participants, then yes it is good. The foetuses are already dead, the placenta is useless outside of cooking and the other sources are clearly voluntary. No-one is damaged and we stand to learn more about ourselves. That stands even before realizing that countless lives could be saved. As for the government-funding? No. It should stand on its own two feet.

Side-note: Why are anti-abortionists called pro-lifers when they are not in principle pro-life. Also, why are pro-abortionists called pro-choicers when they are not in principle pro-choice. Is it just snappy advertising?

Reply

From:
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

Links

April

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
2 3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30