Quite right too, lets also make sure that every child comes with a spare clone child, so that if one of our organs fails we can take one of theirs. Until then though, I think it would be best if we adopted the Chinese policy and simply harvested the organs from prisoners. After all, what is most important is that we continue to survive with the highest possible quality of life, eh?
Can't have the "holy men" raising all sorts of ethical considerations that might interfere with our ability to continue to live by whatever means we deem necessary.
Did it ever occur to you that the people who create all those irritating bioethical roadblocks and argue for those who have no capacity to argue for themselves are what separate our society from following in the train of say China or Nazi Germany and simply using the weak and defenseless (or purging them entirely) as those in power see fit?
You just might find that one day when we have successfully eliminated the concept of the inherent value of all human life, and when humans who are embryos, fetuses, severely retarded or brain damaged, quadrapalegics, terminally ill, or aged no longer have an inherent right to life that your particular category is next in line to be declared "worthless" by the young, healthy, and ethically unconstrained or that they simply determine its your liver that will be harvested to keep them alive.
At one point everyone on this board was an embryo, did they have no inherent right to live at that point? Is it just that society grants you the alienable right to life based on your being outside the womb, healthy and reasonably productive? If so, then the Declaration was wrong to declare that all men "are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." All we have in that case are societal permissions that are mutable and granted to a favored few who meet the current criteria.
- SEAGOON
