Procedural law would indeed be more of a byproduct than a product of morality. By proxy, if you will.

I think more or less what Kula is hinting at is that a system of laws in general has a basis in morality. If a law was created that didn't have a specific reason based on morality, but something based on mere happenstance necessity such as needing to file paperwork before a deadline, that's still a part of the system and the overarching need of "order" and "lawful society".

It's relatively unlike the evolution example in that tools made by man have no tangible link to evolution. Yet, why would we create laws that demand papers be filed on time? The real reason, and the direct link to morality, still remains in that case - to preserve order and maintain a lawful society.

I mean, you could say... it's against the law to murder. And then you could susbequently point to a law that allowed police to carry firearms in public, and suggest that small insignificant by-law(is that a word?) had no basis in morality. It's still a part of the greater system, and the reasoning for that system remains - regardless of whether it is a mere cog of the grand machine.

Tyral's examples don't quite work either in that we can't really equate natural phenomena with systematic decision-making and reasoning based on society's desires =x We can reasonably conclude those aren't based on morality =p

Holy fuck, I was very plainly being facetious. Give me a break.

_________________

Thus the "=p"

Considering how much I masturbate and how many possible lives end up in a trashcan cold and lonely, if some of my little spermies could join up with an unwanted egg to become a little embryo that could save a life by being destroyed, I don't think I would mind!

How can anyone sane mind?

It's not like we are caging babies and doing experiments on them.

Wrong, wrong wrong. Our government especially, was setup to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Rape isn't illegal because it's "wrong", in the crude sense of the word. It's illegal because it infringes upon the rights of another. Same for murder, theft, etc. A fetus, by the current standard, isn't protected as an individual until later in its development. This very arguable point is why this is a contentious issue, not because of someone's God not having the power to stop it.

When someone says, "don't legislate morality", what they really mean is, "If no one's rights are infringed by this act, get the fuck out of the way". Prostitution, euthanasia, drugs (outside of irresponsible use), gay marriage, beer on Sunday, etc, all fall under this umbrella.

I'll gladly microwave ten billion embryonic cell clusters in exchange for eliminating genetic diseases.

Now for the flipside, Kula. Your spouse, or your child, or your parents suffer from a rare genetic quirk which causes a slow, agonizing, painful death. Along the way is muscle rigidity, blindness, and frame-tearing as they wrack but cannot move. If you push the button, you convert 100,000 embryos into a complete cure. What's your choice?

My understanding is in line with yours, Zatronn.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I would argue that the concept itself of "as long as no one's rights are infringed by this act" idea IS a moral choice our society makes. We are saying it's wrong to do that infringement, making it a moral decision.

And I tend to agree with it, BTW-- all those things you mentioned I believe should be legal.

[True/False] Most people arguing the subject got their understanding of Stem Cells from South Park or similar sources.

everything you said was exactly what I said.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

No, you stated that laws should be in place because the "majority" demands it.

Elessar stated that laws and goverment should be in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The ends might be the same in some cases, but they are totally different situations. Just refer to gay rights if you want an example of how the majority will fuck over a certain demographic if you let them.

Well, there's this amazing thing - the two concepts are not mutually exclusive!

Laws can be and are set based on the standards of the majority, and laws can and are set to protect the minority. It's this little thing called balance. Come, sit on uncle Joxur's lap and I'll tell you about this thing called divided government!

No, they're not! I know, it's amazing!

....and yet, it's happened over and over and over in our nations history where the majority simply tramples all over the minority for a good amount of time.

Yeah well, that's just progress. It's going to keep happening and there's no point hand-wringing about it.

I'm sure we have no concept of the human rights challenges we will face 100 years from now just as our ancestors had no concept of the challenges we face right now. I retain a generally optimistic viewpoint that things will change for the better through the concept that social progress on things like gay rights is an unstoppable force. /shrug

You're arguing the reality as opposed to the spirit, which I'm not actually debating. I'm telling how it was meant to be, and how it should be. Not how it is. Hope the clarification helps, and I won't be sitting on any Uncle's lap after that incident 20 years ago omg!

Goddamn this is funny! I had IVF this past December. Let me help you out on actual IVF technology reality. During egg retrieval surgery, they successfully retrieved 8 mature eggs from my ovaries. They performed ICSI on all 8 eggs. Of those eggs, 5 fertilized normally. After a 3 day gestational period, I had 3 - 8 cell blastocytes, and 1-5 celled embryo and 1- 4 celled embryo. They transplanted 2 of the blastocytes. (not implanted, IVF transfers the blastocytes into the cervix and hopes they decide to stick around. There is no such thing as an implant process.) Of the remaining, it takes a 5 day process of growth before they can freeze a blastocyte. The 5 celled and 4 celled embryo stopped progressing, so I was left with one blastocyte to put on ice in case the process did not work. Two implanted and one grew, so out of 8, I have 1 on ice, and 1 in the oven. This was from CCRM, which has one of the best success rates in the country.

Fertility treatments are a crap shoot. Age, genetics, drug protocal, Lab skill can all make a huge difference in the success of a particular IVF cycle. The people who got through the process pour an enormous amount of resources into it, whether financial, emotional or physical. Even with the best lab, and best physician there are no guarantees. Some of the people I know from infertility support groups have attempted IVF 4 times with no success. I've seen people complete a IVF cycle with no embryos because the cells arrest in growth after 1-2 days or fail to fertilize.

So yeah, the conditions you support IVF under, don't exist. Talk to those of us who deal with infertility after maybe another 30 years of advances in the technology.

To the ethical questions at hand.. Before we went through the IVF process, my husband and I had to decide custodial arrangements for our blastocytes.
We had to decide if one of us died, or divorced, who would get custody of the "children", or if they would be destroyed by the lab. If we chose to adopt out the embryos, we would have to get hundreds of dollars of additional genetic and blood testing, as there are legal guidelines for required testing for embryo adoption that are not required for a husband and wife. If a couple does decide to go through the testing,they have the reality of their genetic children being out in society living with strangers.

If a cycle is good, and someone has a lot of eggs retrieved, the blastocytes usually sit in storage until the couple is done with IVF attempts, or they decide to destroy them. That's approximately 400,000 stored in the US right now, many of which will not be used. Why shouldn't they be put to good use?

zomg a Mono

No I did not. no where did I say demands it.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Then you might want to rephrase your paragraph there, because it pretty much says that laws and rules should be in place based only on what the majority of people say and think.