you are missing the point. US coal has not rendered any location on earth uninhabitable for future generations. Fukushima will probably not be so bad as it could have been, but had things gone worse it may have been necessary to abandon large portions of the country of japan for generations. consider what happened a Chernobyl. Given the possibility of such a thing happening again is extremely low, Fukushima remains a good reminder that the chance is non-zero. The Theory of large set probably tells us that if the chance of something is non-zero, given long enough, it is certain to happen.
How low does the chance of making a portion of the earth uninhabitable by human population for multiple generations have to be in order for the risk to justified? Considering that is has nearly happened 3 times and has happened once in the last 50 years, the last time in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, I think a whole lot lower then it is , is the answer most people are having. That isn't even considering the 'fuel dumps' that are accumulating and will need to be monitored and maintained for longer then any government has ever survived.
Why not use geo-thermal, wind, solar or develop fusion, or anti-matter etc. Why the insistence that nuclear power is the only way.
Fact is it isn't the only way forward, it may not be even a good way forward, what it is the the fastest way for existing power companies to make the most money and so the established energy providers are pushing it, is what is really going on.
Perhaps you can shed some light on this for me. What seems of much greater concern is the insertion of genes from far flung species in the genome of our food supply. A current, industrial example,if I'm not mistaken, is the use of a gene from the grouper in a large number of tomato's on the market.
Of greater concern however is using grain, and or food plants, to produce chemicals such as antibiotics, or insulin for harvest, which I've read reports on experiments and test being done with. Given that ingestion of too much insulin etc, could be harmful or deadly to human population , it seems that unless extreme measures , like never letting these plants produce pollen, are taken there is real potential to destroy the ability to reuse seeds from previous croups without high tech tests and procedures in place, effectively poisoning large portions of the human food supply.
Given, the proven track record, of certain companies, that 'patented' gene's have been found in seeds, used by organic farmers who save seeds for the next year. Do you believe there are sufficient regulatory safe guards in place to prevent poisoning of corruption of the existing food supply.
The problem is one 'accident' here could be more damaging long term then anything a nuclear power plant could do.
'There would be more then enough time' presumes you know what conditions are necessary for that time to start counting, Just because life started on earth at a specific time, does not mean every planet would have that event happen , if it ever, at the same point in planetary time line as it did on earth. there is no way to know if 'enough' would be normal when you can't explain IF little lone WHEN there is a start.
Missing 3 problems: 1) There are lack of sufficient safe guards. Learning is good but building nuclear power plants without any safety equipment is dangerous and stupid. Right now mansota et. al, have such an unregulated industry that they are doing all kinds of stupid things. Take the case of the farmer from Canada who was sued for using their, patented genes'. How did he get them, bees carried the genes into his crop, he was on organic farmer who reused seed from year to year. That wasn't supposed to be possible, all it would take is one instance of someone who genetically engineered grain to produce any one of several human hormones, which is already been done. If genes from one of those get's loose, the food supply of every non-controlled, aka non-owned, grain plant the can cross breed with it could be rendered , poisoness for human consumption. so , nuclear research yes, irresponsible, unregulated use of refined plutonium, no thanks.
2) It is an extremely bad precedent to make living things patentable, if people can find a way to patented the process for coming up with genes' fine, if a profit can be made without legal protections, that truly free enterprise. But to suggest it is possible to have so much control over any living things that 'it' is not allowed to reproduce, or even live , without your permission is chilling, from a legal perspective and stiffing from a scientific perspective.
3) Just because, science will be done, doesn't mean the method chosen is a moral one. During WWII there was a large amount of data collected on human tourcher and humans under under extremely circumstanced in the concentration camps. Most researches will have nothing to do with that data because of the way it was collected. Some use it because it is there, but no one is suggesting it is a good thing that the data is there at all.
The reality is much of the experimentation being done, is not being done with sufficient protection, it is using all kinds of draconian, legal tactics to shore up it's funding , and because of that the WAY it is being done, not necessarily the research itself, should not be permitted. The shortest distance between two points is not the best path if it gets you killed !
I worked for the military for 10 years and only stopped working for them about 5 months ago. They use non metric all the time so I'm not sure what this post means. Aircraft altitude and speed are measured in ft and nothing else, unless there is some kind of international operation, etc etc..
It is interesting how counter to Christian theology the 'just world' idea really is. Given that the primary 'hero' of Christians ( Jesus) was beaten, scorned, rejected and then Killed. The scripture is infiltrated with many sayings like: "take up your cross and follow me" "he who tried to save his own life, will lose it , but he who gives up his life, for my sake will save it' .
Christianity teaches that this world is certainly NOT just. There is more evil then we can stomach and more mercy then we can imagine. So with Good Friday coming up , i think this topic is an interesting one to reflect on. Jesus said " can a student be greater then his master? " So why then do we all expect to be able to go through the world without suffering ? living in a world were 'we / the good' prevail and 'them/ the enemy' are overcomes.
And are 'we/ the Good'? The bible says:...." the just man sins 100 times a day".... " no there are non worthy, no not One"... "show me the man who says he is without sin and I will show you a lier "
I call BS on the parent. Faith is the belief in things that have not been seen for oneself. I have faith my breaks will stop my car this time and everything. And that is the normal usage of the word.
To imply Science delivers and faith doesn't is pure subjectiveness and totally unscientific. In fact there are many people of faith who totally disagree and many well documented scientifically unexplainable occurrences that 'just happen' to have occurred when someone had faith. ( I mean like sudden recoveries from sickness, matter being unexpectedly rearranged etc.)
As for experts not agreeing do you know how many competing theories of the creation of the universe there have been and are?
First of all your science is flawed. There is no reason any person is required to have sex and it is possible, for homosexuals at least to overcome their proclivity as certainly some of them have. http://www.peoplecanchange.com/ I don't think as much research has been done on pedophilia.
"however, socially, homosexuality is harmless because it occurs between consenting adults" -- it spreads disease and tends to lead to depression and high rates of suicided. You could make the same argument for masturbation or prostitution , but that wouldn't make any of them moral.
Weather or not they are moral may be a judgement call of an individual , but that should not be a cause for attempting to shut down and shut up people who happen to believe it is immoral. Shut up because I disagree with you makes very poor legal precedence.
essential, natural, biologically determined identity?? And what Identy are we talking about here. There is no proof that any behavior is totally biologically determined. If it could be proven that alcoholism or kleptomania were biologically caused would you then advocate theft and drunkenness while driving?
what makes you think they can't? Have you actually read the science? or are you just a puppet of the political movement. Every study (favorable) to the claim of a genetic link that has been done has shown just exactly that a LINK. it has also shown that some portion of the the behavior involves environment ( and possibly choice).
There are people who claim they themselves have successfully made the transition. are they lying?
well, the term 'cure' implies a 'disease' so I can see the straw-man in the argument. However, it is possible for people living as homosexuals to transition to living as heterosexuals happily. There are many recorded cases of people doing just that. So , is it freedom of speech to inform people of what is true? Freedom of speech to tell them they may have choice? you are basing your argument on poor science.
Here is one simple example of someone who once lived the 'gay' lifestyle but does not do so anymore. http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
so it is possible at least in some cases. Sorry if the facts are not good enough to be considered free speech.
Yep, no one should have to do business with people they don't like. It is called freedom of association. it is a basic human right. Apple has every right not to put up any app they like. I have every right not to buy their product. Walmart and visa re the same. So should banks be. If it isn't paid for with tax money it's nobodies business. We don't need to government telling us how to think, act or behave any more then it already does and in many cases a whole lot less.
Not really... it is an invitation for someone else to tell you you are wrong. It is almost like trolling. in much the same way an app that says 'I rape, i hate , i fornicate might offend some people'
The reality is that some people claim having homosexual sex is wrong. They also claim masturbation is wrong. but I don't see a lot of people running around have 'self pride parades' or trying to force books into schools with titles like 'daddy wiggles his willy' for 5 years olds to read , so the will become 'less hateful' of masturbatory behavior.
It is one thing , to do something that is unusual and contraversal and possibly wrong it is another thing to advertise it with pride.
where are all the abortion pride parades with women who have had abortions dangling little rubber fetuses between their legs anyway? those would be interesting.
Being overweight is a result of genetics and environment ( poor choices if you believe in free will). being an alcoholic is a result s a result of genetics and environment ( poor choices if you believe in free will). and guess what. being 'gay' is a result of genetics and environment ( poor choices that some people believe are poor if you believe in free will).
to what degree genetics vs environment play a roll is a matter of active debate for each situation.
Should someone be picked on for any of them. probably not.
BTW. the 'cure' rate for alcoholism is about the same as it is for 'being gay', when similar methods are used.
That is a very poor assumption. Much of this is promoted by people who claim to be ex-gay and who have suffered with the same condition. Like the man who runs this web page. http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
you are not being very open-minded. What if the information this app is providing was useful? Have you verified it yourself? There are people out their who claim they 'used to be gay' and are happily married heterosexuals. Is what they are doing wrong?
What if the app was titled. Cure for masturbation? or Cure for your Christan attitude? or Cure for liberalism? or Cure for conservativeness? Would people be so terribly offended? either it is wrong or it isn't. Why is 'being gay' a sacred cow.
Either it is possible to make the transition or it is not. Many people claim they personally have made the transition , so what is the harm in letting people who want to try try? Or is it rather that it undermines a particular political agenda?
When you buy palm you agree that it backs itself up to the palm servers. users are notified and sign on to this.I don't see why they need GPS but the rest is resonable.
This kind of thing is a good reminder that , if anything is lasting , or worth doing, it would have to be something done for a god , that truely exists, because man, this planet, and all remnants of what we were will be vaporized as the sun expands.
I guess part of the point is that as a smart developer you can't expect code that requires a specific feature to work in an environment where it doesn't make sense. It is 'good enough' for it to work in every situation where it does make sense. The more places you can get your code to run on with little or no work , the more valuable your code is. Language choice is really all about return on investment(aka fastest, easiest, clearest) and something like this could make a decent percentage of the reasons for projects done only partially in C++ or not done in C++ go away.
Sure you can. Just because you have a standard library doesn't mean the every standard library has to be useable in every platform. Do you think the standard Java 3D graphics libraries run on a smart cards? Any graphical calls compile down to noops in that kind of environment. You still have to test your app in any environment you want to be sure it works on. And you can't expect things to work that aren't supported in the O/S. That doesn't mean you can't compile just that you are going to throw compiler warnings and the functions you are trying to use won't be there, but there is no way around that.
If any one feature could ensure the continuation of C++ as a language it would be a standardized GUI library. ( i know I know, platform problems, implementation , the venders oppose it).
but when it comes right down to it. If C++ had a set of GUI libraries that were part of the standard and could be counted on to be in every compiler ( even if they didn't always look the quite the same). It would go a long way to providing something most developers need and want that can't be found in a lot of languages.
Seriously, exactly what is it about your job that makes it worth sacraficing anything resembling a personal life? I hope you don't have a family or kids and don't plan to with the schedual. your employer needs to higher more people so they can have reasonable work hours and the employees should insist on it. I mean I occosionally work 60 hour weeks , sometimes for a month , but not permanently , what would I do with the money? I'd never have time to spend it on anything fun.
You truly don't understand what the objection is. The question is not 'what does some book say' it is 'what is human life worth'. Medicine exists for the purpose of improving the quality of human life, raising the dignity of the human being. When medicine fails to do those things , it does harm and becomes immoral. in this case however there are more human lives to be considered then just the infertile parents, there is the life of the embryos created in vitro , each of which should be treated with the respect due a human being , because each has every potential that every human being had , when their body was the same age. Why, in itâ(TM)s most basic sense in murder wrong? The answer is simple, it destroys trust and endangers the whole society. If murder wasnâ(TM)t considered wrong and illegal , no one would feel safe enough to conduct commerce or interact and society would collapse. Anything that cheapens human life , and the human person, has a similar effect , only to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how it affects the person, and the group. Anything that cheapens the value of the human person makes them more of a thing and less of being is immoral. Creating human beings in a laboratory is beneath human dignity and should be illegal. Every time it is done , your life, and my life , become a little less valuable , because life moves from being something precious that should be protected at all cost closer to a commodity, something to be bought and sold. How can any reasonable person expect that after life and death themselves have become commodities to be bought and sold that human beings should not be bough, sold, and exploited in any way that is useful to the wealthy or powerful, and the social establishment?
In vitro fertilization, slavery and murder, torture are all wrong for the same reason, in order to carry them out you must first stop viewing a person as a person and treat that person instead as a thing, to be used. Every act like these diminishes the value of citizen ship , endangers all other rights and freedoms, because on what can a right be based , if the right to live is something that can be decided in a laboratory, by an impassioned chemical test?. We are not just things in some collective group called humanity. Each of us is a unique individual and deserves to be treated as such..
or , the destruction of the embryos is morally equivalent to abortion and so the create of said embryoâ(TM)s is immoral, because of the knowledge some would need to be destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
you are missing the point. US coal has not rendered any location on earth uninhabitable for future generations. Fukushima will probably not be so bad as it could have been, but had things gone worse it may have been necessary to abandon large portions of the country of japan for generations. consider what happened a Chernobyl. Given the possibility of such a thing happening again is extremely low, Fukushima remains a good reminder that the chance is non-zero. The Theory of large set probably tells us that if the chance of something is non-zero, given long enough, it is certain to happen.
How low does the chance of making a portion of the earth uninhabitable by human population for multiple generations have to be in order for the risk to justified?
Considering that is has nearly happened 3 times and has happened once in the last 50 years, the last time in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, I think a whole lot lower then it is , is the answer most people are having.
That isn't even considering the 'fuel dumps' that are accumulating and will need to be monitored and maintained for longer then any government has ever survived.
Why not use geo-thermal, wind, solar or develop fusion, or anti-matter etc. Why the insistence that nuclear power is the only way.
Fact is it isn't the only way forward, it may not be even a good way forward, what it is the the fastest way for existing power companies to make the most money and so the established energy providers are pushing it, is what is really going on.
Perhaps you can shed some light on this for me. What seems of much greater concern is the insertion of genes from far flung species in the genome of our food supply. A current, industrial example,if I'm not mistaken, is the use of a gene from the grouper in a large number of tomato's on the market.
Of greater concern however is using grain, and or food plants, to produce chemicals such as antibiotics, or insulin for harvest, which I've read reports on experiments and test being done with. Given that ingestion of too much insulin etc, could be harmful or deadly to human population , it seems that unless extreme measures , like never letting these plants produce pollen, are taken there is real potential to destroy the ability to reuse seeds from previous croups without high tech tests and procedures in place, effectively poisoning large portions of the human food supply.
Given, the proven track record, of certain companies, that 'patented' gene's have been found in seeds, used by organic farmers who save seeds for the next year.
Do you believe there are sufficient regulatory safe guards in place to prevent poisoning of corruption of the existing food supply.
The problem is one 'accident' here could be more damaging long term then anything a nuclear power plant could do.
'There would be more then enough time' presumes you know what conditions are necessary for that time to start counting, Just because life started on earth at a specific time, does not mean every planet would have that event happen , if it ever, at the same point in planetary time line as it did on earth. there is no way to know if 'enough' would be normal when you can't explain IF little lone WHEN there is a start.
Missing 3 problems:
1) There are lack of sufficient safe guards. Learning is good but building nuclear power plants without any safety equipment is dangerous and stupid.
Right now mansota et. al, have such an unregulated industry that they are doing all kinds of stupid things. Take the case of the farmer from Canada who was sued
for using their, patented genes'. How did he get them, bees carried the genes into his crop, he was on organic farmer who reused seed from year to year.
That wasn't supposed to be possible, all it would take is one instance of someone who genetically engineered grain to produce any one of several human hormones, which is already been done. If genes from one of those get's loose, the food supply of every non-controlled, aka non-owned, grain plant the can cross breed with it could be rendered , poisoness for human consumption. so , nuclear research yes, irresponsible, unregulated use of refined plutonium, no thanks.
2) It is an extremely bad precedent to make living things patentable, if people can find a way to patented the process for coming up with genes' fine, if a profit can be made without legal protections, that truly free enterprise. But to suggest it is possible to have so much control over any living things that 'it' is not allowed to reproduce, or even live , without your permission is chilling, from a legal perspective and stiffing from a scientific perspective.
3) Just because, science will be done, doesn't mean the method chosen is a moral one. During WWII there was a large amount of data collected
on human tourcher and humans under under extremely circumstanced in the concentration camps. Most researches will have nothing to do with that
data because of the way it was collected. Some use it because it is there, but no one is suggesting it is a good thing that the data is there at all.
The reality is much of the experimentation being done, is not being done with sufficient protection, it is using all kinds of draconian, legal tactics to shore up it's funding , and because of that the WAY it is being done, not necessarily the research itself, should not be permitted. The shortest distance between two points is not the best path if it gets you killed !
I worked for the military for 10 years and only stopped working for them about 5 months ago. They use non metric all the time so I'm not sure what this post means.
Aircraft altitude and speed are measured in ft and nothing else, unless there is some kind of international operation, etc etc..
It is interesting how counter to Christian theology the 'just world' idea really is. Given that the primary 'hero' of Christians ( Jesus) was beaten, scorned, rejected and then Killed. The scripture is infiltrated with many sayings like:
"take up your cross and follow me"
"he who tried to save his own life, will lose it , but he who gives up his life, for my sake will save it' .
Christianity teaches that this world is certainly NOT just. There is more evil then we can stomach and more mercy then we can imagine.
So with Good Friday coming up , i think this topic is an interesting one to reflect on.
Jesus said " can a student be greater then his master? "
So why then do we all expect to be able to go through the world without suffering ? living in a world were 'we / the good' prevail and 'them/ the enemy' are overcomes.
And are 'we/ the Good'? The bible says: ...." the just man sins 100 times a day" .... " no there are non worthy, no not One" ... "show me the man who says he is without sin and I will show you a lier "
I call BS on the parent. Faith is the belief in things that have not been seen for oneself.
I have faith my breaks will stop my car this time and everything. And that is the normal usage of the word.
To imply Science delivers and faith doesn't is pure subjectiveness and totally unscientific. In fact there are many people of faith who totally disagree and many well documented scientifically unexplainable occurrences that 'just happen' to have occurred when someone had faith. ( I mean like sudden recoveries from sickness, matter being unexpectedly rearranged etc.)
As for experts not agreeing do you know how many competing theories of the creation of the universe there have been and are?
First of all your science is flawed. There is no reason any person is required to have sex and it is possible, for homosexuals at least to overcome their proclivity as certainly some of them have.
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
I don't think as much research has been done on pedophilia.
"however, socially, homosexuality is harmless because it occurs between consenting adults" -- it spreads disease and tends to lead to depression and high rates of suicided. You could make the same argument for masturbation or prostitution , but that wouldn't make any of them moral.
Weather or not they are moral may be a judgement call of an individual , but that should not be a cause for attempting to shut down and shut up people who happen to believe it is immoral. Shut up because I disagree with you makes very poor legal precedence.
essential, natural, biologically determined identity??
And what Identy are we talking about here. There is no proof that any behavior is totally biologically determined.
If it could be proven that alcoholism or kleptomania were biologically caused would you then advocate theft and drunkenness while driving?
what makes you think they can't? Have you actually read the science? or are you just a puppet of the political movement.
Every study (favorable) to the claim of a genetic link that has been done has shown just exactly that a LINK. it has also shown that some portion of the the behavior involves environment ( and possibly choice).
There are people who claim they themselves have successfully made the transition. are they lying?
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
well, the term 'cure' implies a 'disease' so I can see the straw-man in the argument.
However, it is possible for people living as homosexuals to transition to living as heterosexuals happily. There are many recorded cases of people doing just that.
So , is it freedom of speech to inform people of what is true? Freedom of speech to tell them they may have choice? you are basing your argument on poor science.
Here is one simple example of someone who once lived the 'gay' lifestyle but does not do so anymore.
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
so it is possible at least in some cases. Sorry if the facts are not good enough to be considered free speech.
Yep, no one should have to do business with people they don't like. It is called freedom of association. it is a basic human right.
Apple has every right not to put up any app they like. I have every right not to buy their product. Walmart and visa re the same. So should banks be. If it isn't paid for with tax money it's nobodies business. We don't need to government telling us how to think, act or behave any more then it already does and in many cases a whole lot less.
Not really ... it is an invitation for someone else to tell you you are wrong. It is almost like trolling.
in much the same way an app that says 'I rape, i hate , i fornicate might offend some people'
The reality is that some people claim having homosexual sex is wrong. They also claim masturbation is wrong.
but I don't see a lot of people running around have 'self pride parades' or trying to force books into schools with titles like
'daddy wiggles his willy' for 5 years olds to read , so the will become 'less hateful' of masturbatory behavior.
It is one thing , to do something that is unusual and contraversal and possibly wrong it is another thing to advertise it with pride.
where are all the abortion pride parades with women who have had abortions dangling little rubber fetuses between their legs anyway? those would be interesting.
Being overweight is a result of genetics and environment ( poor choices if you believe in free will).
being an alcoholic is a result s a result of genetics and environment ( poor choices if you believe in free will).
and guess what.
being 'gay' is a result of genetics and environment ( poor choices that some people believe are poor if you believe in free will).
to what degree genetics vs environment play a roll is a matter of active debate for each situation.
Should someone be picked on for any of them. probably not.
BTW. the 'cure' rate for alcoholism is about the same as it is for 'being gay', when similar methods are used.
That is a very poor assumption. Much of this is promoted by people who claim to be ex-gay and who have suffered with the same condition.
Like the man who runs this web page. http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
you are not being very open-minded. What if the information this app is providing was useful? Have you verified it yourself?
There are people out their who claim they 'used to be gay' and are happily married heterosexuals. Is what they are doing wrong?
http://www.samesexattraction.org/really_overcome.htm
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
What if the app was titled. Cure for masturbation? or Cure for your Christan attitude? or Cure for liberalism? or Cure for conservativeness?
Would people be so terribly offended? either it is wrong or it isn't.
Why is 'being gay' a sacred cow.
Either it is possible to make the transition or it is not. Many people claim they personally have made the transition , so what is the harm in letting people who want to try try? Or is it rather that it undermines a particular political agenda?
When you buy palm you agree that it backs itself up to the palm servers. users are notified and sign on to this.I don't see why they need GPS but the rest is resonable.
This kind of thing is a good reminder that , if anything is lasting , or worth doing, it would have to be something done for a god , that truely exists, because man, this planet, and all remnants of what we were will be vaporized as the sun expands.
I guess part of the point is that as a smart developer you can't expect code that requires a specific feature to work in an environment where it doesn't make sense. It is 'good enough' for it to work in every situation where it does make sense. The more places you can get your code to run on with little or no work , the more valuable your code is. Language choice is really all about return on investment(aka fastest, easiest, clearest) and something like this could make a decent percentage of the reasons for projects done only partially in C++ or not done in C++ go away.
Sure you can. Just because you have a standard library doesn't mean the every standard library has to be useable in every platform. Do you think the standard Java 3D graphics libraries run on a smart cards? Any graphical calls compile down to noops in that kind of environment. You still have to test your app in any environment you want to be sure it works on. And you can't expect things to work that aren't supported in the O/S. That doesn't mean you can't compile just that you are going to throw compiler warnings and the functions you are trying to use won't be there, but there is no way around that.
If any one feature could ensure the continuation of C++ as a language it would be a standardized GUI library.
( i know I know, platform problems, implementation , the venders oppose it).
but when it comes right down to it. If C++ had a set of GUI libraries that were part of the standard and could be counted on to be in every compiler ( even if they didn't always look the quite the same). It would go a long way to providing something most developers need and want that can't be found in a lot of languages.
Seriously, exactly what is it about your job that makes it worth sacraficing anything resembling a personal life? I hope you don't have a family or kids and don't plan to with the schedual. your employer needs to higher more people so they can have reasonable work hours and the employees should insist on it. I mean I occosionally work 60 hour weeks , sometimes for a month , but not permanently , what would I do with the money? I'd never have time to spend it on anything fun.
You truly don't understand what the objection is.
The question is not 'what does some book say' it is 'what is human life worth'. Medicine exists for the purpose of improving the quality of human life, raising the dignity of the human being. When medicine fails to do those things , it does harm and becomes immoral.
in this case however there are more human lives to be considered then just the infertile parents, there is the life of the embryos created in vitro , each of which should be treated with the respect due a human being , because each has every potential that every human being had , when their body was the same age.
Why, in itâ(TM)s most basic sense in murder wrong? The answer is simple, it destroys trust and endangers the whole society. If murder wasnâ(TM)t considered wrong and illegal , no one would feel safe enough to conduct commerce or interact and society would collapse.
Anything that cheapens human life , and the human person, has a similar effect , only to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how it affects the person, and the group. Anything that cheapens the value of the human person makes them more of a thing and less of being is immoral.
Creating human beings in a laboratory is beneath human dignity and should be illegal. Every time it is done , your life, and my life , become a little less valuable , because life moves from being something precious that should be protected at all cost closer to a commodity, something to be bought and sold.
How can any reasonable person expect that after life and death themselves have become commodities to be bought and sold that human beings should not be bough, sold, and exploited in any way that is useful to the wealthy or powerful, and the social establishment?
In vitro fertilization, slavery and murder, torture are all wrong for the same reason, in order to carry them out you must first stop viewing a person as a person and treat that person instead as a thing, to be used.
Every act like these diminishes the value of citizen ship , endangers all other rights and freedoms, because on what can a right be based , if the right to live is something that can be decided in a laboratory, by an impassioned chemical test?. We are not just things in some collective group called humanity. Each of us is a unique individual and deserves to be treated as such..
or , the destruction of the embryos is morally equivalent to abortion and so the create of said embryoâ(TM)s is immoral, because of the knowledge some would need to be destroyed.