Back to Quack Off
Scientists slap Bible
Bangers' definition of "when does life begin?" upside their diploid
(Jun 7, 2007)
Washington, DC – As we
have stated over and over at this free market Web Site, the moral argument
for individual private property rights of the woman (superseding the alleged
rights of the fetus) in the abortion issue is the same moral argument for
individual private property rights in stem cell research. The key
point in establishing a code of individual rights ethics in both of these
issues is the determination of (or choosing as an axiomatic primary)
when does constitutionally-protected life begin?
We at FM Duck have chosen that point as when the
fetus' umbilical cord has been separated from the mother.
We further define individual rights as socio-political-economic rights of
two or more individuals not living in a symbiotic parasitical relationship.
Under this definition, a mother and her unborn fetus are not separate
individuals and thus the mother's private property rights to her own body
Judeo-Christians and some members of the U.S. Supreme Court, having no
logically-reasoned code of moral philosophy
and basing their morality upon the voodoo ethics of "faith-based reasoning"
-- an oxymoron at best -- consistently fall back upon the Catholic Church's
premise that life begins at conception of sperm and egg after a night of
conjugal frivolity, or at least ecumenical duty. They then run into
both the biological AND moral contradiction that the life of the fetus is
constitutionally-protected -- without defining what constitutes an
"individual" or "individual rights" -- and end up stripping the mother of
all of her private property rights to her own body during nine months of
Church's contradictory definition of "life," the fetus obtains individual
rights while the mother loses her individual rights. Thus, if the
mother becomes pregnant through rape or incest, or her fetus develops
unwanted syndromes, or the mother's health becomes impaired, she has no
individual rights -- under the Church's code of ethics -- to remedy her
situation through exercising her now defunct private property rights over
her own body.
Libertarians would argue that their definition of when life becomes
constitutionally-protected -- i.e. when the umbilical cord is cut to produce
two separate individuals -- is a more rational definition than the the
Church's definition of "at conception."
compare the two.
Libertarian definition not only protects the mother's inherent individual
rights, it allows her to choose the direction of what is still part of her
own biological DNA, her own cells, her own fetus, in the same way that she
controls the rest of her body by choice of diet, activity, preventive health
maintenance, and all of her other inherent freedoms of voluntary
association, travel, trade, speech, and religion.
is becoming increasingly important as we just discovered in yesterday's
scientific breakthrough of regenerating or "coaxing" differentiated skin
cells back to undifferentiated totally potent cells (diploid totipotent
cells capable of generating all other organs such as hearts, livers,
kidneys, etc.), it is rapidly becoming very important to establish a
rational moral definition of "when life begins" so we can rationally define
individual private property rights for cloning our own organs.
Church's definition of "life begins at conception" does not answer the
following questions, and thus leaves us morally and litigiously hanging in
limbo. "What is conception?" Is cloning in the laboratory
"conception?" If the cloned embryo is transplanted into a woman, is
that "conception?" If a skin cell is transgenerated back into a
totipotent cell and thence into a sperm or egg cell (a haploid gametogenous
cell) or into a transplantable organ growing in the lab or within an
individual's partially or totally cloned body, is that the "start of life"
these questions are easily answered, biologically, ethically, and
litigiously, by the Libertarian definition of a woman's private property
rights superseding the alleged rights of the fetus until the umbilical cord
is cut. None of these questions are answered in any rational or
consistent manner by the Church's (or major religions') contradictory
definition which denies a woman inherent private property rights to her own
body while attempting to establish individual rights for her fetus --
usually through a power of attorney via the collectivist state.
importance of establishing a logical code of moral ethics to protect a
woman's -- and all individuals' rights qua
individuals, not as biologically-dependent fetuses still in the
womb -- is becoming increasingly important (oh yoo-hoo, Supreme Court, can
you hear me?) as bio-technology rapidly unravels the mysteries of the
genome. This code of ethics does not, of course, include federal
subsidies since forced taxation for embryonic or any other research violates
many individuals' religious beliefs as well as their wallets.
Obviously, all research belongs in the free market and private enterprise.
-- FM Duck
back to top...