Ok, I may be dredging this up but I've only just got round to reading this in it's entirety.
From what I can see, the debate (if you can call one person against everyone else a constructive debate) is more to do with being pro-life and against abortion rather than the actual matter at hand.
On a personal level, I've had an abortion (think I mentioned before I'm pretty frank and open about shit like this), thought this wasn't actually through choice. There were complications. This leaves my views on abortions a little skewed. BUT, should I have been given the opportunity to 'donate' in anyway I would have jumped at it.
When put into perspective, I would see this no differently than to a parent allowing a child to be an organ donor. Death, be it an old man, a kid or an aborted fetus will always happen so I don't see how embryonic stem cell research to an aborted fetus is any different to organ donation or those who choose to donate their bodies to science. I can understand those that say a fetus is a life from day 1, regardless that it can't think/feel etc and that it should have rights, I feel that way too, but as with anything, if a child or person can't make a choice (organ donation, life support, whatever) then that desicion is made by those closest to them who decide what is best. That's acceptable, so why is making the same kind of desicion on behalf of an aborted fetus any different?
__________________
'You got red on you...'
|