I was wondering, if my unused body was converted to ethanol, how many miles would someone get from me?

You make a good point worthy of discussion. Instead of a blanket free for all I might go with limited organ retrieval, such as heart/lungs, eyes, and kidneys.

My only argument against would be the sentimentality most people place on their “loved ones” remains. Sheet, I have expressly stated that if any part of my body can help someone, then help them. I won’t be needing those parts anymore.

Waste? Bury me in recycled cardboard and plant a tree over me.

The same should apply to all the embryos sitting in cold storage. Instead of wasting them, if the parents consent without preconditions, great. Use them.

I am uncomfortable about using cow cells though. I fear somebody from Utah might show up on my doorstep calling me “Cuz” by way of some distant bovine connection on his father’s size. If you think that is bull, look at what #13 is like.

Embryonic stem cells also have a reputation for causing cancer.

1. creating stem cells FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARVESTING is morally different than abortion. A mothers rights is not involved to balance the equation in taking potential/actual human life.

2. Fetus’s have rights on instant one. Fetuscide is the law now in many states. Mothers have the unrestricted right to abort in FIRST TRIMESTER ONLY. In second Trimester the STATE gains the right to moderately interfer–such as in requiring parental notification and such (which might apply to first trimester as well?) and so forth. In Third Trimester–State has a competing interest in protecting the life of the fetus==still heavily/mostly tilted in favor of the mother.

Now I actually favor “FOURTH TRIMESTER” rights in the parents as I see kiddies born with defects to be of not much value. Let the parents do as they wish, and can afford. How long should this parental freedom be afforded==I don’t know, probably should end when the kid is fast enough to outrun the parents==and keep going?

Biggest argument against recycling human protein is the danger of disease. Other than that, yes, bodies are a resource we waste now, and won’t in the future. But as with the kiddies, I think the nearest relatives should still have the duty/freedom to control their gene pool as they wish. ie – - The STATE should be about empowering choices, not limiting them.

Like the story above, I wonder how that might sit with religious-types and ethicists who don’t consider either human eggs or sperm to be a unique individual until the exact moment they combine.

Btw: Funny I should see yesterday, & for the first time, that exact cow costume on the ski slopes. It’s disconcerting when it is worn by a male.

RBG

RBG

If you give the moral argument against harvesting stem cells, then deal the with morality and legality of abortion first.

According to the pro-choice group and the Supreme Court, fetuses have no rights until they are over 6 months old (Last Trimester). Therefore, since they have no rights they can be killed without their permission. It happens over 1,000,000 times a year in the US alone. That’s about one in every 300 people per year.

Since the climate in this country is to kill the fetuses,and since they have no rights, then why not put them to good use? Yes, I know it sounds a little like Josef Mengele in a concentration camp, or maybe Brave New World, but that is the way it is here in the US.

It seems at the very least to be “unthrifty” to kill the fetuses while placing artificial limits on stem cell research.

I mean, since they don’t have any rights and there truly is a great need…

Needs more cowbells…

When will science ever learn, don’t pee in the gene pool. It’s only going to result in the creation a monster, who will eat your face off.

No, I’m serious! I’ve seen those movies a dozen times, and it happend every time…

it’s just plain dumb to deprive the US the opportunity to cure everything so that we can just kill ourselves in more creative ways.