In a message dated 8/16/2001 11:56:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pcm@rahul.net
writes:
<< What I would have meant if I had written "right to live" is an agreement
among most members of society that the organism's life should be protected
from some class of threats, and that people should commit to spending more
effort fighting any one infringement than would be justified by the harm
associated with that one infringement. >>
Hopefully, rapid discoveries in stem cell research, and the technology it
spans will eliminate the need for embryonic cells. But an embryo, by
definition is not a fetus, so appeals against late term abortions get
reduced, but never silenced. Adult stem cell research seems promising indeed,
but the researchers themselves will move offshore (literally) to pursue
biological advances, whether the anti-abortion movement agrees or not. My
guess is that they would next try to get a law passed that would order jail
time for American scientists who perform such research in a foreign country,
and then return. I am not joking on this one.
As far as the Thread, "why immortality?", I believe its because even the
humblest of us, might, with time and learning, aspire to help implement
useful things such as terra-forming uninhabited and uninhabitable places in
the solar system. This is useful for multi-species preservation, including
the perceived new species of robot-life that humans and A.I. packages might
ascend to. If there ever is a super solar flare or a nova, trans-carbon life
may do nearly as poorly as carbon life.
Mitch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:10 MDT