Stem-Cell research

[RedCornFlakes]

Is it acceptable for a socialist or marxist to support Stem Cell Research?

[Q]

Yes, I don't see why not. The medical and scientific opportunities are legion. The main argument against it comes from christians that complain you're killing a 'life' (that is, an amorphous bunch of cells).

[Dialectical Wizard]

Is it acceptable for a socialist or marxist to support Stem Cell Research?






There’s nothing wrong with supporting stem cell research, only reactionaries and idiots oppose it.

[RedThinker]

I think that what ever can help life being better, easier and more livable is a good thing. The only downside is profit... If someone find something new out, he is prob gonna sell it for so much that a normal person would't be able to effort it.

[Q]

I think that what ever can help life being better, easier and more livable is a good thing. The only downside is profit... If someone find something new out, he is prob gonna sell it for so much that a normal person would't be able to effort it.
Well, that's a social problem, not an argument against stem cell research.

[RedCornFlakes]

Yes, I don't see why not. The medical and scientific opportunities are legion. The main argument against it comes from christians that complain you're killing a 'life' (that is, an amorphous bunch of cells).
Well this might be a tad off-topic but I personally think abortion is wrong, morally at least. However it's her body and the fetus is barely human anyway. There's too many burdens to having a child, and even conceiving the child all together. But why not donate the fetus to Stem-Cell Research? Might as well make the thing useful.

[Dialectical Wizard]

Well this might be a tad off-topic but I personally think abortion is wrong, morally at least. However it's her body and the fetus is barely human anyway. There's too many burdens to having a child, and even conceiving the child all together. But why not donate the fetus to Stem-Cell Research? Might as well make the thing useful.



Opposing abortion is reactionary and sexist comrade, like you said it’s her body so men or society have absolutely nothing to say what she can or can’t do with her body. Opposing abortion is inherently sexist and patriarchal, it isn’t wrong the world is already overpopulated enough.

[Future]

Opposing abortion is reactionary and sexist comrade, like you said it’s her body so men or society have absolutely nothing to say what she can or can’t do with her body. Opposing abortion is inherently sexist and patriarchal, it isn’t wrong the world is already overpopulated enough.

Opposing abortion on ethical grounds is neither reactionary nor sexist. It's clear that RedCornFlakes' opposition to abortion is on moral grounds - and has only to do with fetus rights and how the termination of potential life is immoral, etc.

I disagree with his (or her, I don't know which) opinion as much as you do, but it's overkill to call someone a sexist reactionary because they have a disagreement with you on the ethics of unborn life. It would be sexist and reactionary if RedCornFlakes actually supported the taking away of women's rights to their bodies, sexual health, and moral autonomy. Wanting to limit a woman's ability to deal with her own body the way she sees fit would be patriarchical and strongly reactionary - but just having a philosophical disagreement with the rightness or wrongness of such an action is harmless when one's concern is the metaphysics of life and/or the potential of fetus pain.

So, opposing abortion does not make one sexist. Opposing a woman's right to have an abortion is sexist.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Opposing abortion on ethical grounds is neither reactionary nor sexist. It's clear that RedCornFlakes' opposition to abortion is on moral grounds - and has only to do with fetus rights and how the termination of potential life is immoral, etc.

I disagree with his (or her, I don't know which) opinion as much as you do, but it's overkill to call someone a sexist reactionary because they have a disagreement with you on the ethics of unborn life. It would be sexist and reactionary if RedCornFlakes actually supported the taking away of women's rights to their bodies, sexual health, and moral autonomy. Wanting to limit a woman's ability to deal with her own body the way she sees fit would be patriarchical and strongly reactionary - but just having a philosophical disagreement with the rightness or wrongness of such an action is harmless when one's concern is the metaphysics of life and/or the potential of fetus pain.

So, opposing abortion does not make one sexist. Opposing a woman's right to have an abortion is sexist.

And what about the role of "moral" shaming in propping up reactionary laws, mores, and generally limiting women's access to abortion services? I mean, we generally call people who think homosexuality is immoral homophobes; why should we give any leeway to people who think abortion is wrong?

[Future]

And what about the role of "moral" shaming in propping up reactionary laws, mores, and generally limiting women's access to abortion services? I mean, we generally call people who think homosexuality is immoral homophobes; why should we give any leeway to people who think abortion is wrong?

Well, I think that a homophobe's opinion is largely harmless as long as they are not promoting the limiting of homosexuals' rights in some way. A homophobe can have a completely irrational disapproval of homosexuality, yet still support (or at least not try to counter) homosexual rights. Such a person would be very morally flawed, but not an active reactionary.

I don't care how people feel about abortion and homosexuality as long as they don't push their irrationalism upon society or, as you said, try to "shame" others. If someone is trying to shame women for getting abortions or trying to shame homosexuals, that person is actively being reactionary in an endeavor to limit rights.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Well, I think that a homophobe's opinion is largely harmless as long as they are not promoting the limiting of homosexuals' rights in some way. A homophobe can have a completely irrational disapproval of homosexuality, yet still support (or at least not try to counter) homosexual rights. Such a person would be very morally flawed, but not an active reactionary.

I don't care how people feel about abortion and homosexuality as long as they don't push their irrationalism upon society or, as you said, try to "shame" others. If someone is trying to shame women for getting abortions or trying to shame homosexuals, that person is actively being reactionary in an endeavor to limit rights.

And by voicing their opposition to abortion, they are shaming women.

[Future]

I'd also add that being against homosexuality and being against abortion differ in an important way. Being against homosexuality is to discriminate against romantic and sexual preferences - that is, to discriminate against individuals for their nature. Being against abortion is not morally sexist if the person in question is only concerned with fetus rights. Such a person would be equally concerned if men could get pregnant, or if we grew a fetus in a lab, etc. Granted, I realize that most people against abortion are so because of grossly reactionary and sexist reasons. I'm just saying that it's possible to be against the idea of abortion morally, but still be pro-women's rights, and that not be a sexist position, rather an irrational position based around concern for a fetus.

Edit: I think that kind of responds to your last post as well. Voicing opposition to abortion is not inherently the same as voicing opposition for a woman's right to abort. Such a person as I described could argue against the morality of abortion (the act of terminating a fetus in a vacuum), but do so independently of women's rights.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'd also add that being against homosexuality and being against abortion differ in an important way. Being against homosexuality is to discriminate against romantic and sexual preferences - that is, to discriminate against individuals for their nature. Being against abortion is not morally sexist if the person in question is only concerned with fetus rights. Such a person would be equally concerned if men could get pregnant, or if we grew a fetus in a lab, etc. Granted, I realize that most people against abortion are so because of grossly reactionary and sexist reasons. I'm just saying that it's possible to be against the idea of abortion morally, but still be pro-women's rights, and that not be a sexist position, rather an irrational position based around concern for a fetus.

Morality schmorality. We are Marxists - we don't care if X is going to heaven or hell for having bad thoughts (they aren't), but we do care what their role in the structural, material oppression of women is.

[Future]

Morality schmorality. We are Marxists - we don't care if X is going to heaven or hell for having bad thoughts (they aren't), but we do care what their role in the structural, material oppression of women is.

Morality is very important to me and it should be to you too. Ethics is an essential part of human life and progress. Also, I'm a Marxist in the sense that I agree with the Marxian analysis of history and class - I'm also an anarchist who values libertarian ethics.

And keep in mind that I don't believe it is immoral for a woman to abort a fetus. But some people might think it is, and as long as they're against it for some metaphysical reason, I don't find that reactionary. Misplaced and irrational, yes, reactionary, no, not always.

[Dialectical Wizard]

I'd also add that being against homosexuality and being against abortion differ in an important way. Being against homosexuality is to discriminate against romantic and sexual preferences - that is, to discriminate against individuals for their nature. Being against abortion is not morally sexist if the person in question is only concerned with fetus rights. Such a person would be equally concerned if men could get pregnant, or if we grew a fetus in a lab, etc. Granted, I realize that most people against abortion are so because of grossly reactionary and sexist reasons. I'm just saying that it's possible to be against the idea of abortion morally, but still be pro-women's rights, and that not be a sexist position, rather an irrational position based around concern for a fetus.

Edit: I think that kind of responds to your last post as well. Voicing opposition to abortion is not inherently the same as voicing opposition for a woman's right to abort. Such a person as I described could argue against the morality of abortion (the act of terminating a fetus in a vacuum), but do so independently of women's rights.



You can get banned or restricted for opposing abortion, so I wouldn’t defend pro-life apologists if I was you…

[Future]

You can get banned or restricted for opposing abortion, so I wouldn’t defend pro-life apologists if I was you…

If what I've said puts me at risk for being banned or restricted than I've gravely misjudged this forum. And if what I've said puts me at risk of being banned or restricted then I don't want to belong to a forum that censors genuine philosophizing. I think what I've said is very clear and reasonable, so I'm not worried in the slightest, Military Mind.

Also, who said I oppose abortion?

[Dialectical Wizard]

If what I've said puts me at risk for being banned or restricted than I've gravely misjudged this forum. And if what I've said puts me at risk of being banned or restricted then I don't want to belong to a forum that censors genuine philosophizing. I think what I've said is very clear and reasonable, so I'm not worried in the slightest, Military Mind.

Also, who said I oppose abortion?




I never said you opposed abortion, you clearly don’t. But you do seem to defend pro-life apologists. It's just friendly warning comrade…

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Morality is very important to me and it should be to you too. Ethics is an essential part of human life and progress.

Ethics is an essential part of every reactionary sentiment, from homophobia to misogyny. Communists have no need of ethics - we can analyze society and discern our interest as a class and the interests of oppressed groups without relying on semi-theological notions.


Also, I'm a Marxist in the sense that I agree with the Marxian analysis of history and class - I'm also an anarchist who values libertarian ethics.

That's nice. But your arguments in this thread don't seem very libertarian - you are treating women's bodily autonomy as something problematic to be debated with reactionaries, instead of firmly taking a stand for this autonomy.


And keep in mind that I don't believe it is immoral for a woman to abort a fetus. But some people might think it is, and as long as they're against it for some metaphysical reason, I don't find that reactionary. Misplaced and irrational, yes, reactionary, no, not always.

So we're supposed to ignore material realities because someone has (allegedly) good intentions?

[Future]

never said you opposed abortion, you clearly don’t. But you do seem to defend pro-life apologists. It's just friendly warning comrade…

Well, I'm not defending pro-lifers or defending the notion that being pro-life (as the term is used) is not reactionary. Pro-lifers are in support of limiting (or totally removing) a woman's right to have autonomy over her reproductive body. I'm not defending the pro-life position - I'm promoting the idea that someone who is against abortion on metaphysical grounds concerning the value of fetus life (independent of the fetus' carrier), can hold such an opinion (irrational, I agree) without actually being a reactionary (since such a person could still defend a woman's right to choose) and without being sexist (if this person would feel the same way if men could get pregnant or if a fetus is being grown in a lab or some other non-female role in fetus development). That's it. So thank you for the warning, but I think what I've written here is not in violation of the rules of this forum.

[Future]

Ethics is an essential part of every reactionary sentiment, from homophobia to misogyny. Communists have no need of ethics - we can analyze society and discern our interest as a class and the interests of oppressed groups without relying on semi-theological notions.

First of all, my ethics have nothing to do with religious nonsense. My ethics are derived from a logical and scientific understanding of human nature, based upon a foundation that supports that which is in promotion of our survival and enhancement of that survival as a species.

Also, any ethics that tries to justify mysogyny and homophobia is a shitty ethics not grounded in reason.



That's nice. But your arguments in this thread don't seem very libertarian - you are treating women's bodily autonomy as something problematic to be debated with reactionaries, instead of firmly taking a stand for this autonomy.

What are you talking about. I've done no such thing. To me, this entire argument about a hypothetical position is purely academic. To say that I stand for taking away a woman's autonomy is nothing but a slander and you know it. I take a firm stand against sexism - I'm just pointing out that the hypothetical position I have outlined here, while irrational, can be shown to not be sexist.



So we're supposed to ignore material realities because someone has (allegedly) good intentions?

Who said that? The material realities are what ethics should be based on.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

First of all, my ethics have nothing to do with religious nonsense. My ethics are derived from a logical and scientific understanding of human nature, based upon a foundation that supports that which is in promotion of our survival and enhancement of that survival as a species.

Don't big up yourself too much. What is an enhancement of survival and why should I care for the survival of the human species. Come to think of it, if there was a demographic crisis, would you support restricting abortion and contraception to ensure the survival of the species?


Also, any ethics that tries to justify mysogyny and homophobia is a shitty ethics not grounded in reason.

None are grounded in reason, though. And - this is elementary given the nature of class society - most ethical systems are homophobic and misogynist.


What are you talking about. I've done no such thing. To me, this entire argument about a hypothetical position is purely academic. To say that I stand for taking away a woman's autonomy is nothing but a slander and you know it. I take a firm stand against sexism - I'm just pointing out that the hypothetical position I have outlined here, while irrational, can be shown to not be sexist.

You're treating the autonomy of women as something problematic to be debated, whereas you would not treat the autonomy of men as such. That is all.


Who said that? The material realities are what ethics should be based on.

The material reality is the oppression of women. You want us to ignore moral Orels who are part of that oppression because they allegedly don't mean to be sexist. Well, objectively they are.

[Tenka]

If the research seems promising (and it does) then full speed ahead. I'm not sure if stem cells even necessarily come from fetuses (omfg I just learned my preferred spelling is a hypercorrectionism!) but neither do I care if thousands of fetuses need be destroyed in the process of acquiring them. I am not sure how it could be seen as unacceptable by a diabolical socialist (presumably in league with Satan) such as myself.

[Future]

Don't big up yourself too much. What is an enhancement of survival and why should I care for the survival of the human species. Come to think of it, if there was a demographic crisis, would you support restricting abortion and contraception to ensure the survival of the species?

Why should you care about the survival of humanity? Do I have to answer this question for you? And no, I would never support such measures to keep humanity going. You misunderstand what I mean by my ethical foundation. As animals with survival instincts, it is objectively in our nature to want to survive and enhance that survival. All of ethics can be derived from these two pillars. However, infringing on someone's autonomy by forcing them to not abort or stop using contraception would be against their right to choice, therefore, their right to determine what is in their best interest for themselves as rational animals.



None are grounded in reason, though. And - this is elementary given the nature of class society - most ethical systems are homophobic and misogynist.

I don't care about "most" ethical systems. I care about correct ethical systems. Socialist anarchism is grounded in reason.



You're treating the autonomy of women as something problematic to be debated, whereas you would not treat the autonomy of men as such. That is all.

It's not problematic, but it can be debated - just like anything can be debated. I can debate with you that trees are invisible and that unicorns exist in the wild. It'd be an irrational thing to debate, but it's possible to debate it. Also, I've made no distinction between the autonomy of men and women. I used a hypothetical argument to illustrate my point. If, in a hypothetical world, men could get pregnant, if some asshole opposes abortion on grounds of fetus rights in a vacuum, that person would not be sexist against women.



The material reality is the oppression of women. You want us to ignore moral Orels who are part of that oppression because they allegedly don't mean to be sexist. Well, objectively they are.

I'm not sure I undertand what you said. The material reality is that people of all kinds are oppressed. It is objectively in the best interest of those who are oppressed to overthrow their oppressors.

If a person has a moral aversion to aborting fetuses that are grown in some future science fiction lab, that person can't be sexist if there is no "sex" tied to this instance of abortion.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Why should you care about the survival of humanity? Do I have to answer this question for you?

Yeah.

In fact, why should I care about my own survival? Most people do, of course. But if they don't care about it, they are not being irrational. No argument can make them care about their own survival, or the survival of humanity etc.


And no, I would never support such measures to keep humanity going. You misunderstand what I mean by my ethical foundation. As animals with survival instincts, it is objectively in our nature to want to survive and enhance that survival. All of ethics can be derived from these two pillars. However, infringing on someone's autonomy by forcing them to not abort or stop using contraception would be against their right to choice, therefore, their right to determine what is in their best interest for themselves as rational animals.

Well, I'm glad that you don't think women should sacrifice their autonomy to Preserve the Race Species. But then it seems that the survival of the species is not central to your ethics. Autonomy is.

So what about the autonomy of the bourgeois? The communist line is clear - the autonomy of the bourgeois doesn't matter.

That's one of the many problems that ethical systems have - they are either inconsistent or blatantly go off the rails. Another problem is that they are impossible to base on facts without either special pleading, appeals to the supernatural or the naturalist fallacy.


I don't care about "most" ethical systems. I care about correct ethical systems. Socialist anarchism is grounded in reason.

Look, when I told you to not big up yourself, I was offering sincere advice. I remember being a young and bored petit-bourgeois with enough free time to go system-shopping and so on. Simply telling us how your system is based on Reason and Truth and Science won't cut it - if it's so reasonable, you can explain it to us. But you won't - not because you're stupid, but because normative moral systems are a lost cause, a subjectivist mess where people pull axioms and intuitions from their esteemed, often professorial, asses.


It's not problematic, but it can be debated - just like anything can be debated. I can debate with you that trees are invisible and that unicorns exist in the wild. It'd be an irrational thing to debate, but it's possible to debate it.

But you won't debate these things, will you? Nor will you debate whether men should be stopped from having vasectomies or piercings or whatever. Because these things are not problematic in today's misogynist society, whereas women's control of women's bodies and sexuality is. You might consider yourself to be above sexism, but adopting a formally "neutral", "gender-blind" stance is the worst thing you can do - it just means that all the crap you've assimilated from your upbringing will remain unchallenged, masked by a thin veneer of formal non-sexism.


Also, I've made no distinction between the autonomy of men and women. I used a hypothetical argument to illustrate my point. If, in a hypothetical world, men could get pregnant, if some asshole opposes abortion on grounds of fetus rights in a vacuum, that person would not be sexist against women.

See? This is what I'm talking about. I mean, by this sort of argument the Taliban aren't homophobic either, since they advocate the killing of straight people who have sex with the same gender as well as gay people. It's an empty, formalist, idealist argument that ignores the concrete material facts - females are the only ones who get pregnant. If cis-men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.


I'm not sure I undertand what you said. The material reality is that people of all kinds are oppressed. It is objectively in the best interest of those who are oppressed to overthrow their oppressors.

People of all kinds are oppressed, but cis-men are not oppressed as cis-men. No one is limiting their bodily autonomy - except their autonomy to engage in same-sex acts.

[Future]

Yeah.

In fact, why should I care about my own survival? Most people do, of course. But if they don't care about it, they are not being irrational. No argument can make them care about their own survival, or the survival of humanity etc.

As animals with powerful survival instincts, humans "want" to live. If you want to live, you would be irrational to support your non-existence. If you don't want to live, you would then be irrational to support your existence. But like you said, most people want to live, therefore most people should want to keep themselves and the community they depend upon alive.




Well, I'm glad that you don't think women should sacrifice their autonomy to Preserve the Race Species. But then it seems that the survival of the species is not central to your ethics. Autonomy is.

Autonomy is what's central to my ethics, and it just so happens that such autonomy can only occur in the presence of life. Since most people want to live and want to enhance that life, their autonomy must not be infringed upon and they must not be allowed to infringe on others' autonomy. Otherwise, there is a violation of the instinct to survive and enhance that survival by outside agents - i.e, you're going against autonomy that is logically derived considering our nature as a species, and therefore you have a "right" to increase your happiness as an emotional and ration animal by opposing your oppressors. Not to mention how this is materialistically unstable and will result in the cycle we Marxists know all too well.



So what about the autonomy of the bourgeois? The communist line is clear - the autonomy of the bourgeois doesn't matter.

The bourgeoisie has immoral autonomy. They have obtained freedom at the expense of others' freedom. They have infringed on the autonomy of others in order to obtain their own. Such autonomy is materalistically doomed fail as well as immorally possessed given an understanding of libertarian ethics.


That's one of the many problems that ethical systems have - they are either inconsistent or blatantly go off the rails. Another problem is that they are impossible to base on facts without either special pleading, appeals to the supernatural or the naturalist fallacy.

Again, I don't care about most ethical systems. I care about ethical frameworks that are slaves to logic and science.



Look, when I told you to not big up yourself, I was offering sincere advice. I remember being a young and bored petit-bourgeois with enough free time to go system-shopping and so on. Simply telling us how your system is based on Reason and Truth and Science won't cut it - if it's so reasonable, you can explain it to us. But you won't - not because you're stupid, but because normative moral systems are a lost cause, a subjectivist mess where people pull axioms and intuitions from their esteemed, often professorial, asses.

Okay, so I will try to briefly explain my reasoning. First of all, I am an advocate of objective ethics. I made a post in another thread about how I justify objective ethics against subjective ethics you may find of interest as well: http://www.revleft.com/vb/subjectivism-emotivism-and-t183456/index.html?p=2708249. In short, I am convinced that ethics are objective for human beings given a scientific consideration of the nature of our species. It's much more nuanced than this, but at its most basic level, things that are in promotion of our survival and the enhancement of that survival are what we consider "good" and that which is detrimental to our survival and the enhancement of that survival is the "bad." This is true for us as individual animals and also true of us as a species that must be communitarian in order to function properly. If we accept the premise that humans endeavor to live and live well, then we can derive from these basic axioms the actions that support this goal for us as individuals and as communities and the actions that are detrimental to this goal for us as indiviuals and as communities. Good, bad, moral, and evil, are all just cute terms that represent these different kinds of actions and how they affect us.

Libertarianism, secular humanism, and a few other systems are ethical frameworks that I believe to be grounded in an objective use of logic that is supported by material science. So, while you don't have to agree with my conclusion, I hope you at least understand why I support such reasoning and that I consider it objective.




But you won't debate these things, will you? Nor will you debate whether men should be stopped from having vasectomies or piercings or whatever. Because these things are not problematic in today's misogynist society, whereas women's control of women's bodies and sexuality is. You might consider yourself to be above sexism, but adopting a formally "neutral", "gender-blind" stance is the worst thing you can do - it just means that all the crap you've assimilated from your upbringing will remain unchallenged, masked by a thin veneer of formal non-sexism.

I will debate anything. I have focused on abortion because it was in response to a comment made in this thread and abortion is unique in that it deals with the continuation or termination of lifeorms (or potential lifeforms). Also, I would not debate a woman's right to have an abortion because there is no debate. A woman has every right to have an abortion (something I've proudly stood for all my life) and any measures taken by society to tell her otherwise is immoral considering my ethics. The same goes for vasectomies, or whatever.

Also, I have adopted no gender-blind stance. I just don't assume that every issue that in some way involves a female has to inherently be either sexist or non-sexist. In the hypothetical argument I've created I have assumed a person who has an aversion to abortion strictly on the grounds that developed fetus life has rights and that termination of this life is an infringement of said life. If this person is against abortion on these grounds and these grounds alone, then it wouldn't matter if the fetus was in the womb of a woman, in a constructed womb of a male, or in an incubation vat in a scientists' lab. The point I'm making is that it is possible to be against the termination of fetus life and genuinely not tie this aversion to sexism. The fetus in a vacuum is what is of concern here. Furthermore, I believe it would be inappropriate to call such a person a reactionary sexist if they, despite their strong moral aversion to abortion, still openly supported a woman's right to choose.




See? This is what I'm talking about. I mean, by this sort of argument the Taliban aren't homophobic either, since they advocate the killing of straight people who have sex with the same gender as well as gay people. It's an empty, formalist, idealist argument that ignores the concrete material facts - females are the only ones who get pregnant. If cis-men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

You know as well as I do that it is possible for someone to form an irrational moral opinion about fetus life and still support abortion rights. You also know that if men could get pregnant (it'll inevitably happen someday), that there would still be people who would oppose abortion strictly on metaphysical ground concerning fetus rights. My point is that it is possible to oppose the termination of fetus life in a vaccum and not tie it to rights if one is not promoting the limiting of the abilties of women or future men to abort.



People of all kinds are oppressed, but cis-men are not oppressed as cis-men. No one is limiting their bodily autonomy - except their autonomy to engage in same-sex acts.

Men and women both suffer from patriarchy, and any good feminist realizes this. Women in modern society are being grossly discriminated against and having their rights stolen by pro-life idiots, and I oppose them as much as you do and I think I've made that clear from my first post. I have entertained a hypothetical argument about the metaphysics of fetus life in a vacuum and how it is possible to be morally against abortion without actually trying to push your morality on society. That's it. Anyway, I think I have taken this tread way off topic. If you'd like to continue this debate with me perhaps we could VM or PM or something else to free up the discussion about stem-cell research which is too important a topic to be drowned out by this debate.

[Max]

OF course, the research is very productive and in it may lie cures to many body disorders that we have today as humans.

[Sea]

I think it is inappropriate for a Marxist to still be on the fence about it.

[Rss]

Down with the tyranny of our limited biology. I see nothing wrong with stem cell research itself, if it can improve human quality of life.