Friday, April 12, 2002

One of the favorite insults hurled at anti-cloners is that we're "luddites", flat-earthers who want to see people suffer and avoid all progress. But it's the pro-cloners who are trying to move us against the tide of history.

Even a cursory look at history will show that society has been moving towards greater inclusion of people who have rights. When this country was founded only white male land owners had any rights at all. Over the last 225 years, all those requirements have been dropped, and the rights of citzenship have been extended to all.

Now, those favor of embryonic research want us convince us that embryos don't qualify for rights because they're tiny and microscopic and lack whatever best serves their cause (a beating heart, sex organs, a central nervous system -- you see all these trotted out depending on where the author is trying to draw the lone). In fact they don't even have the most basic right of all -- the right not to be killed. So, it's OK to create and destroy then, and coerce them into whatever behavior we see fit, so long as it benefits us who have rights.

Has this type of thinking ever produced good? I raised this question once, and the response I got back was meat-eating. Hmmm -- do we need any more proof that this research is dehumanizing, since its advocates are citing meat eating as moral justification? Aren't embryos closer to the "himan life" end of the continuum than animals?

Maybe somebody needs to ask the pro-cloners why they want to turn back the clock -- why do they wish to deny rights to embryos, when the historical trend is to expand rights.

Post a Comment