Moi
Active Member
Yes, in the context of my question, it's the very definition of selfish- concerned with one's advantage without regard for its impact on others. Clearly using aborted fetal tissue and/or growing biological beings for the express purpose of experimentation is a tricky issue.
We all act selfishly in our lives and no one has walked earth that hasn't thought of their own survival. And I'm not saying that selfish concerns alone make something not worthwhile, but it is a decision which should be made consciously. Regardless of one's position on this issue, I doubt many people with an opinion wish people harm.
However, we immunize for polio, small pox, measels, etc. Yet today we are faced with cancers beyond all imagination, autism in record numbers, retardation, birth defects, extensively handicapped individuals, west nile virus, mad cow disease, aids, etc. Are we better off overall or, is there a rebound effect going on? I happen to believe that nothing happens in a vaccuum and that evertyhing that we do to destroy life or disease affects other aspects of biology.
Getting past the negative connotation of the word and the obvious emotions surrounding disease, my question was if those advocating for stem cell research even think about the possibility that they are gambling the greater good for the few. No one can possibly know what the ramifications are of this type of research will be and, therefore, are gambling that the majority of us won't suffer. There's a difference between doing that knowingly and being willing to risk it versus just pretending the risk or result doesn't exist. If they know the risk and yet are willing to take it, I'd like to know why.
