Yucca mountain. So, after we have spent 16 billion dollars to prepare Yucca mountain to be the depository for the nations spent fuel rods, the Obama administration has decided to scrap it because, as the energy seceretary says "we can do better". Thats all fine and good, and may even be true, but I think that is beside the point. We currently have spent fuel rods that have to be stored on site. By law, the federal government is supposed to take possesion of those, and store them, they currently are not. In order to comply with the law, Yucca mountain was chosen as the site. We have spent the money, but now, I guess, the mountain will just sit unused. Is there possibly a better option, who knows. Is the status quo better than Yucca mountain, by no stretch of the imagination. Anyway, it seems to be political pandering that doesn't help anything, and is actually harmful, and wasteful. Big disagreement from me.
Second, stem cells. Here I could have done an entire post on this topic, but something else has me a little more miffed, so this one will stay on the shorter side. Stem cells are a hotly debated topic, problem is, I think the argument is on the complete wrong portion of the process in my opinion.
Currently those who go through the in vitro process harvest and fertilize more eggs than they use, when they are not used, the vast majority get dumped down the sink (maybe not the exact technical process, but the result is the same.) Anyway, the arument is over whether or not these embryos should be used (or actually whether or not federal funding should be used) in research. So, people can have their safe moral stance against it, because surely a human life > research, right? I would agree, but don't think that is the comparison. When these embryos are going to be flushed, shouldn't our debate be about whether or not its moral to create so many embryos that will never be used, and discard the excess? By the time we hit research stage, these embryos are disposable either way. But it is harder to take a moral stance against people who want to have a baby. It makes the debate more complex, but I think its more intellectually honest.
So, I am kind of indifferent to Obama's lifting of the ban on research money.
2 comments:
In 1988, there were 3.3 adoption seekers for every adoption. Even if you have the thousands of dollars to spend, your chances aren't good. It's no wonder that so many people who lack children but not money turn to IVF. But you're right; it's an ethical issue that gets swept under the rug.
So what can be done about adoption? The modern abortion industry--medical, political, and commercial--is a major obstacle. On top of that, our society now accepts and even encourages knocked-up youngsters "raising" their babies. I say, solve this and you've almost solved the stem-cell debate.
This issue is easy for me because I've drawn clear lines. Some may argue with me on where I draw the line but the logic behind it is the sound. Life begins when you combine sperm and egg and have a viable zigot(sp?).
With this I think a lot more can be done on the Pro Life movement if they tackle this issue instead od the other issues regarding abortion. The facts are if you get rid of one lot of IVF eggs you basicly have the net result as dozens to scores of abortions.
The primary reason I think that the Pro Life movement doesn't address this is one, they are just brain washed dogmatics and two it would be political suicide to do so. So much for doing the right thing.
Now this is a complicated issue, becasue we haven't even talked about the notion that protection and right levels could vary with the stage of human development one is at. We do this now in laws designed to protect children. I'm not saying what my view on that is, but it is a huge issue that applies and has hours and hours of disscusions before there is even a meaningful understanding of the sides.
As for stem cell reasearch and the allowing federal funding for it? In general I'm a yes, but for more complicated reason's than I can post in one post.
Post a Comment