So what's so bad about scientific research on Jewish remains anyway?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Inspired by the comments of many, many anti-lifers regarding the harvest and sale of fetal remains. It occurred to me reading BlindBoo specifically just how obviously fucked up this line of reasoning is if you replace "fetus" with a class of person that is protected.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research that will benefit real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

 

[g5000]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

Killing tens of millions of undesirables enhances lives, eh? Interesting theory, mein Fuhrer.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research, so long as that research benefits real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

The dead and the never born, once cold, are non-people. We bury them, we don't throw them birthday parties...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

Killing tens of millions of babies enhances lives, eh?

Not if you don't use the remains to your advatage. And since most women don't regret their abortions, that's a myth, you can make a decent case that legal induced abortion did make their lives better. Either way, what's dead is dead. We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Someone might be alive, but you can always change that regardless of how old they are. And if we've defined them as not being people, then why shouldn't we? Especially when it will benefit real people such as yourself?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

Killing tens of millions of babies enhances lives, eh?

Not if you don't use remains. And since most women don't regret their abortions, that's a myth, you can make a decent case that legal induced abortion did make their lives better. Either way, what's dead is dead. We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

Exactly. People. Nobody ever said we can't simply decline to see those humans as people. I mean, it wasn't too long ago that a fairly small proportion of our country had that status.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Someone might be alive, but you can always change that regardless of how old they are. And if we've defined them as not being people, then why shouldn't we? Especially when it will benefit real people such as yourself?

My mother threaten to change my status a few times, but didn't. I think we have more than enough bodies to play with as it is.

 

[g5000]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

Killing tens of millions of babies enhances lives, eh?

Not if you don't use the remains to your advatage. And since most women don't regret their abortions, that's a myth, you can make a decent case that legal induced abortion did make their lives better. Either way, what's dead is dead. We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

Killing tens of millions of undesirables enhances lives is an interesting theory, mein Fuhrer.

 

[kwc57]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research, so long as that research benefits real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

The dead and the never born, once cold, are non-people. We bury them, we don't throw them birthday parties...

"Never born" because they were human beings murdered in the womb. My neighbor has been causing some problems not controlling his weeds and dogs and it is very inconvenient to me. I'm guessing your solution is to dehumanize him so I can justify "dismissing" my little problem? Nice little rationalization you've got going on there. Wrong, immoral, but nice.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

Killing tens of millions of babies enhances lives, eh?

Not if you don't use remains. And since most women don't regret their abortions, that's a myth, you can make a decent case that legal induced abortion did make their lives better. Either way, what's dead is dead. We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

Exactly. People. Nobody ever said we can't simply decline to see those humans as people. I mean, it wasn't too long ago that a fairly small proportion of our country had that status.

Times have changed, on the living at least.

 

[g5000]

We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

We didn't kill those cadavers for the students' use, mein Fuhrer. Those dead volunteered their bodies to be used upon their natural death.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

Killing tens of millions of babies enhances lives, eh?

Not if you don't use the remains to your advatage. And since most women don't regret their abortions, that's a myth, you can make a decent case that legal induced abortion did make their lives better. Either way, what's dead is dead. We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

Killing tens of millions of undesirables enhances lives is an interesting theory, mein Fuhrer.

You are confusing fetus with person. Don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

We didn't kill those cadavers for the students' use, mein Fuhrer. The dead volunteered their bodies.

Yep, and after death they are very useful to us. Organ donation and the like should be mandatory. You can't take it with you.

 

[g5000]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

Killing tens of millions of babies enhances lives, eh?

Not if you don't use the remains to your advatage. And since most women don't regret their abortions, that's a myth, you can make a decent case that legal induced abortion did make their lives better. Either way, what's dead is dead. We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

Killing tens of millions of undesirables enhances lives is an interesting theory, mein Fuhrer.

You are confusing fetus with person. Don't.

It is a person. It has that aforementioned liver you crave.

 

[g5000]

We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

We didn't kill those cadavers for the students' use, mein Fuhrer. The dead volunteered their bodies.

Yep, and after death they are very useful to us. Organ donation and the like should be mandatory. You can't take it with you.

So not the same as those whose lives were taken involuntarily. HUGE difference. Your attempts at moral equivalency are pretty sick to observe.

Tens of millions of undesirables murdered to enhance lives. We've heard this song before.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research, so long as that research benefits real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

The dead and the never born, once cold, are non-people. We bury them, we don't throw them birthday parties...

"Never born" because they were human beings murdered in the womb. My neighbor has been causing some problems not controlling his weeds and dogs and it is very inconvenient to me. I'm guessing your solution is to dehumanize him so I can justify "dismissing" my little problem? Nice little rationalization you've got going on there. Wrong, immoral, but nice.

You are also confusing fetus with person. You won't win any arguments starting from a false premise.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Times have changed, on the living at least.

Why not go back? It doesn't matter if the law says it doesn't. I mean, just think what breakthroughs we could find if we could do vivisection again. Right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Using the dead, or never born, to enhance the lives of the living? Winner winner, chicken, ah, liver.

Killing tens of millions of babies enhances lives, eh?

Not if you don't use the remains to your advatage. And since most women don't regret their abortions, that's a myth, you can make a decent case that legal induced abortion did make their lives better. Either way, what's dead is dead. We don't teach doctors anatomy using live people after all.

Killing tens of millions of undesirables enhances lives is an interesting theory, mein Fuhrer.

You are confusing fetus with person. Don't.

It is a person. It has that aforementioned liver you crave.

I can't help you until you get the facts straight. You have to think through when do you have a person, and when do you have just a body?