It is off topic but how could you say Hitler is immoral when he has as much right and authority as you do? Where do morals come from? Do we each do what is right in our own eyes?
in a world without a divine lawgiver, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist—there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say that you are right and I am wrong. —William Lane Craig
Nothing what I write is off topic. The questions, that you are not answering are important when it come to therapeutic cloning.
So, please answer is it moral to destroy something, that would not exist anyway, such as the fetus, made especially for destroying?
Also answer what is worse from the moral point of view - to use therapeutic cloning, or to let people die from shortage of organs? Extremely important question concerning the therapeutic cloning. Please, answer.
I haven't discussed Hitler yet. You are the one, who is putting him in the topic from time to time. And this is exactly what is off-topic. Hitler has nothing to do with embryos, fetuses, and therapeutic cloning. Of course, I am just an usual man with no high authority, and no "who knows what" right (law institutions) standing behind me.
Where the moral come from? lol. Exactly. Why I have to follow exactly your idea for moral?
Who defines what moral is?
Inducing pregnancies just to produce fetuses for stem cells against the fact, that many people are dying today from a shortage of organs. What is more moral?
Have in mind the following:
Fetuses, that would be produced for that purpose would not exist anyway. Is it moral to destroy something, that would not exist anyway? Before it has been developed into a fully functional human.
I don't really feel sorry for the fetuses, but the mothers from poor areas that will repeatedly do this in order to get money to survive, buy food or clothes or shelter etc. Pregnancy is a toll on the body, hormons, mind.
People do die from a shortage of organs, but if purposefully inducing pregnancies and aborting fetuses just for organs or stem cells becomes something "normal" , most rich people will keep their private flocks of women from poor countries or areas to produce fetuses for their own personal immortality and you will end up with a situation where the privileged live forever on the backs of women being constantly pregnant but childless to support this and who do not have enough money to pay for the same procedure for themselves.
At which point does the switch happen? Sure, someone's organ is failing, replace it, save a life, someone stem cells population is gone, replace it, but if you repeat this indefinitely you will produce immortality. It can hardly then be looked at as "saving lives" by producing fetuses, but it is means towards immortality - living past a natural "deadline".
Denying someone an unnatural lifetime or immortality does not seem like much of a moral transgression, compared to denyig a dying person an organ. But where is the difference, where is the border between the two perspectives?
People corrupt everything beyond any imagination, which is why civilisation does need to be a bit more careful with how it proceeds.
Very often in our life we have to choose between several bad things in order to end up with the smallest evil from them all. The mothers from poor areas may (and will, similarly with the surrogate mothership) do that for money. And here come the questions - is it better to open this type of income for them, or to keep them in their current economical state. Maybe, according to you it is better to halt this type of income for them, and keep them in their current economical state, but is it better or worse really? The practice of the surrogacy already is allowed in some countries. The countries, that allowed surrogate mothership don't have rich people, who keep their private flocks of women from poor countries. Instead, they developed a legal system in which the surrogate mother signs her contracts, receives her money, which are not bad money at all, completely legally, and only for her, (the clinic also gets payed from the future parents, but the money for the surrogate are clear from the very start, and are good money), bears the entire pregnancy under medical control, not only the first 1-2 months, needed for therapeutic cloning, and delivers the child to the parents, some times even without knowing and having the right to know who they are. Everything this happens in controlled medical environment on the safest possible way for the mother and for the child. And everybody is happy. So, the practice showed, that this of your concerns is not a concern.
"Sure, someone's organ is failing, replace it, save a life, someone stem cells population is gone, replace it, but if you repeat this indefinitely you will produce immortality."
Of course. This is what is all about. The main purpose. You will repeat this until another way pops put from the science.
The border between the two perspectives is seen if you consider many factors.
My main arguments for therapeutic cloning at the moment are:
- the cloned for organs fetus would not exist anyway, so it can be destroyed, after being formed.
- cloned fetus designed for body parts would not be a fully developed human.
- it doesn't have the desire to live.
- choosing between the death of the entire organism, and the therapeutic cloning, the therapeutic cloning is more acceptable.
- therapeutic cloning at the moment is the only theoretically feasible way of getting the most important organs for transplantation.