knabe
Well-known member
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp?pg=1
A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."
Rising to the task, leading bioethicists argue that for a human, value comes from possessing sufficient cognitive abilities to be deemed a "person." This excludes the unborn, the newborn, and those with significant cognitive impairments, who, personhood theorists believe, do not possess the right to life or bodily integrity. This thinking has led to the advocacy in prestigious medical and bioethical journals of using profoundly brain impaired patients in medical experimentation or as sources of organs.
sounds like the eugenics journal which was renamed social biology, planned parenthood orginators, lenin, hitler, wilson, all over again.
i can see it now. a court of law pitting the grasshopper against wheat and discrimination of why they didn't eat the weeds, but only the wheat. the logical conclusion to this is that procreation of any species is immoral.
The committee does not consider that genetic engineering of plants automatically
falls into this category, but its majority view holds that it would if the genetic modification caused plants to "lose their independence"--for example by interfering with their capacity to reproduce. (but abortion is ok)
guilt is such an overused motivator.
A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."
Rising to the task, leading bioethicists argue that for a human, value comes from possessing sufficient cognitive abilities to be deemed a "person." This excludes the unborn, the newborn, and those with significant cognitive impairments, who, personhood theorists believe, do not possess the right to life or bodily integrity. This thinking has led to the advocacy in prestigious medical and bioethical journals of using profoundly brain impaired patients in medical experimentation or as sources of organs.
sounds like the eugenics journal which was renamed social biology, planned parenthood orginators, lenin, hitler, wilson, all over again.
i can see it now. a court of law pitting the grasshopper against wheat and discrimination of why they didn't eat the weeds, but only the wheat. the logical conclusion to this is that procreation of any species is immoral.
The committee does not consider that genetic engineering of plants automatically
falls into this category, but its majority view holds that it would if the genetic modification caused plants to "lose their independence"--for example by interfering with their capacity to reproduce. (but abortion is ok)
guilt is such an overused motivator.
