Re:What I'm shocked about... (Score -1, Offtopic)

It seems to me that you are taking a very profound ethical stance when you argue for sacrificing a few for the benefit of the many. You are putting forth a very pragmatic view of ethis where someone gets to decide who will live and who will die based on the "over all good" of the group. Based on your ethical presuppositions, since there are many people who are dying of hunger in the world why not wipe out a few hundred million of the people who are eating too much in order to free up more resources for the rest of the population who needs it? I will grant you that some of the people that we will have to sacrifice are in my phone book, probably have opinions on many things (some may even be similar to yours), and have probably done plenty of things. But, since we are talking pragmatically, perhaps we can lower our standards on what constitutes a person worth keeping and a person worth killing if we could perhaps benefit the population as a whole. Perhaps, you should care what a person's ethical or religious beliefs are when deciding on a subject such as when life starts. Otherwise we would have people like you deciding who lives and who dies based on pragmatic assumptions that could "justify" just about anything based on what they thought was "good" and "beneficial" to the group as a whole. If you are so enthusiastic about sacrificing people for medical research for the good of the whole, why don't you start with yourself and let other people make that decision for themselves.