Nick Gillespie notes at Hit & Run:
leading opponents to embryonic stem cells are not simply worried about the embryo issue - they fundamentally question whether we should be intervening to prolong and improve human lifespans and ameliorate human suffering....
George W. Bush's bioethics kingpin, Leon Kass, is on record as saying, "The finitude of human life is a blessing for every individual, whether he knows it or not." Like Fukuyama and others that Reason's Ron Bailey has pegged as "pro-death," the core issue is not how we might extend life but whether we should.
As I've pointed out in the past, it is hard to even hold a debate with people who push the horrific concept of using government power to block research and treatments for age-related degeneration. It amounts to promoting murder by legislation.
Glenn Reynolds echoes Nick Gillespie's view, made in response to the latest in embryonic stem cell research:
This would defuse the pro-life opposition. It wouldn't address the concerns of those - like, say, Leon Kass - who are uncomfortable with dramatic advances in medical technology for other reasons.
Both give too much respect for these views; there comes a time when you have to stand up and tell the other side that they are far outside the bounds of discourse. You can't hum and nod thoughtfully in response to a proposal that involves forcing billions to suffer and die.
"Both give too much respect for these views; there comes a time when you have to stand up and tell the other side that they are far outside the bounds of discourse. You can't hum and nod thoughtfully in response to a proposal that involves forcing billions to suffer and die."
Very well put. :)
Actually, I'm vigorously opposed to embryonic stem cell research, and at the same time, vigorously in favor or life extension research. To group these two view points is unfair, as they involve completely separate moral arugements.
I could argue that people who advocate healthy life extension are using that to attack pro-life people, and advance their own pro-choice causes. It cuts both ways. In reality, they are different moral cases, and as a result, you'll fine all four combinations of viewpoints very prevalent.