Presidential Debate thread

[Dark Vengeance]

*snip* because two guys sent representatives to talk with each other and determine it was best not to work together on two (?) occations and that makes it all worthwhile and mean something.

Which would be all well and good as an argument against our reason for going to war, if we had gone into Iraq for the purpose of avenging 9/11.

But we didn't.....so what else have you got?

Because really, all this stuff is a minor dick-measuring contest at this point. Saddam had ties to terrorism, aided terrorists, was in material breach of UN 1441, and was believed to be an imminent threat to our national security. The world is better off without him....even Kerry has said as much.

The primary thrust of the Kerry campaign isn't even that we went to war at all.....it's the fact that we didn't use more diplomacy, and go in with greater support from allies like France and Germany, and greater financial and military support from the coalition.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Margalis]

No offense man, but I get fucking sick of hearing this bullshit response. Does anyone rip on Bush's detractors for taking Kerry's talking points?

Then stop quoting the talking points. If we want to argue with a 3x5 index card, we'll do that.

It IS possible to argue for something without exactly parroting the party line. And it is possible to argue something and still see some flaws in it.

Honestly I do not think you are particularly guilty of the talking points stuff. I would say instead that you don't cast the same critical eye at everything. To me you appear very selectively critical. I actually wrote up something about that in a thread yesterday but ran into posting problems.

I see you putting critical thought into things, but only where it suits you. I don't see Bruce doing anything other than reading from a teleprompter. The fact that he is incapable of conceding even the most minor point indicates to me that he is only interested in parroting the party line.

I am willing to concede plenty of points of real substance on Kerry and Clinton. For example, I don't believe for second that we will round up all the Nuclear material in Russia in 4 years, although I do believe Kerry will try harder than Bush. I would go as far as to say that Kerry said that knowing it probably wouldn't happen.

[Roac]

Collaborative operational relationship is an evaluation of the strength of the relatiionship. How many times do we have to go over this?

I'm "connected" to my next door neighbors.  Spoken with them only a couple times.  How likely is it that police would get me executed and confiscate my property just because he went on a killing spree at his work?  How many times do we have to go over the fact that just because you talk with someone doesn't mean you're equally guilty as they for everything they do for the rest of their life?

[Margalis]

Because really, all this stuff is a minor dick-measuring contest at this point. Saddam had ties to terrorism, aided terrorists, was in material breach of UN 1441, and was believed to be an imminent threat to our national security.

By who? Who exactly believed he was an imminent threat? I didn't. Neither did the CIA, or the Pentagon.

[Samwise]

Again, I'm still waiting for YOU to admit that your statement was literally false, and you were simply exagerrating to increase the emotional impact of your statement in order to illustrate a point.

I'm suddenly reminded of attacks on Michael Moore because he made a "literally false" statement on Oprah about toasters (which he repeated in Bowling for Columbine).

On the Oprah Winfrey show (11/1/02), talking about the Michigan bank that offered long-guns as gifts, Moore says: "What happened to giving out toasters, you know? I'd never heard of anybody killed by a toaster, you know?"

But, surprise!, once again, Moore is wrong, you know? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (8/30/02) reports a woman who used a rolled-up newspaper and toaster to light a cigarette started a fire that killed her mentally ill adult daughter. The Irish Times (2/28/02) reports that in Cork, in 1997, one homeless man murdered another homeless man by hitting him in the head with a toaster. And the Philippine Daily Inquirer (8/28/01) tells of a young woman who saw her toaster on fire, threw water on it and was electrocuted instantly.

(Note for the clue-impaired: the point of Moore's statement was not that it's impossible for someone to be killed by a toaster, the point was that guns are designed to be weapons, and toasters are not.)

It's a truly tenuous argument that has to be supported by citing toaster death statistics.

[Margalis]

Indeed, Kerry has gone on the badmouth the very allies we DO have, calling them the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed".  Nice, John; have you been taking diplomacy lessons from me???  And then he goes on to call the new leader of Iraq a puppet... yeah, that'll really get the allies to rally around Iraq!

If you are going to lift material directly from the debates, just quote verbatim next time. Thanks.

I would point out that right after the debates a story circulated that some of Allawi's speech had been written by Republicans on the hill and he had been coached on it's presentation.

[personman]

It's a fascinating issue, even for a guy that generally doesn't care much for science like myself. I'll say that I don't agree with Bush's stance....but to go the other route and simply open the floodgates is something i would object to even more.

I share your concerns regarding how the cells are gathered.

I felt Bush's compromise was actually quite reasonable.  And IMO one of the rare times he's truly acted from a reasoned conviction.  At least he didn't pull his usual flipflop by noisily announcing support one week then quietly yanking funding the next.

Nothing prohibits the research.  But it is immensely more likely the breakthroughs and the rewards that go with it won't directly involve American companies.

This doesn't particularly bother me either.  Corporations do not usually have a problem getting what they want from this administration - if they're really concerned they'll get funding in Bush's next cycle.

[SirBruce]

Collaborative operational relationship is an evaluation of the strength of the relatiionship. How many times do we have to go over this?

I'm "connected" to my next door neighbors.  Spoken with them only a couple times.  How likely is it that police would get me executed and confiscate my property just because he went on a killing spree at his work?  How many times do we have to go over the fact that just because you talk with someone doesn't mean you're equally guilty as they for everything they do for the rest of their life?

If your neighbor seemed to be willing to offer you safe haven if the police came looking for you, or if some of your conversations were discussions on killin sprees on mutually agreeable targets?  I suspect the Police would be very interested in arresting you.

Bruce

[Roac]

Which would be all well and good as an argument against our reason for going to war, if we had gone into Iraq for the purpose of avenging 9/11.

Except that according to our President, there were direct links between Iraq and AQ funding, which according to Bush is how they were able to get 9/11 to work.  So yes, his original reason was a mix of past collaboration which led to 9/11 and WMDs.  The case brought to the UN was almost entirely WMDs (and for good reason - national security is our issue, but WMD is a global issue).  The present stated purpose is ongoing human rights violations and having the intent to develop WMD programs.

The problem is the orginal purpose had no merit, and the present, Orwellian purpose, leaves no reason why we had to go to war right away, as opposed to involving the UN.  In fact, I feel that type of issue should be handled through the UN, since it is one of global concern and applies to a LOT of countries.

[Margalis]

Again, I'm still waiting for YOU to admit that your statement was literally false, and you were simply exagerrating to increase the emotional impact of your statement in order to illustrate a point.

I didn't make the original statement, so you'll have to keep waiting.

[DarkDryad]

Except that the UN is full of a) people profiting from the sanctions placed on Iraq b) weak willed countries who would rather piss fire into a vat of gasoline than fight, and c) held in check by France whos record on war speaks for itself.

[Roac]

If your neighbor seemed to be willing to offer you safe haven if the police came looking for you, or if some of your conversations were discussions on killin sprees on mutually agreeable targets? I suspect the Police would be very interested in arresting you.

Only if it was those ideas were agreed upon, and even then with limitation.  I certainly wouldn't be executed.  The only such discussions which could possibly result (legally) in execution are plans which are treasonous, but even then you've still got to have more to go on than "we talked about it, and decided it was a bad idea".  

But again, you're on very shakey ground; all countries as a matter of course plan and discuss options, even unpleasant ones.  The US has contingency plans for war with Canada, Japan, Britain, and everyone else as well as various potential combinations thereof - so do they, although most countries don't flesh them out as much.

[Dark Vengeance]

That's where the argument breaks down; where do you think these disposable embryos came from in the first place?  That is, fertility clinics purposefully create multiple zygotes for each patient.  Part of that is a limitation of the techniques they use, and the difficulty in making just one viable zygote, so to compensate they make a batch of them.  

However, if you hold that it is unethical to create embryos knowing that you will dispose of them, then you must also argue that the techniques that these fertility clinics use to create "spares" is also unethical.

Thank you for going down this path. Really. I had avoided it, mainly because it comes dangerously close to the issue of abortion.

When you go into a fertility clinic, you go in with the intent of creating a human being. You don't go in saying "cmon honey, let's go destroy some embryos today". The embryos are created with the intent of producing a baby. I have no problems with that.....you need to use as many eggs as possible. That's how it works. Some would not survive pregnancy anyway....and the mother obviously couldn't possibly carry anywhere near all of them to term, even if she tried. Furthermore, they are embryos that would not likely have been created WITHOUT this process.

Intent makes all the difference.

Bear with me on this one, because it gets kind of hairy. It is so morally detestable as to be inconceivable that a woman would go out and get pregnant on purpose with the predetermined intent of aborting the pregnancy. To even suggest that someone would do so is ridiculous. However, I think we can agree that if a woman were to do so, it would be considered morally appalling almost universally.

By comparison, take a woman who gets pregnant by accident, or gets pregnant intentionally and then finds reason to end the pregnancy (e.g. a risk to her own health).....in the former, there is no advance intent to create an embryo, in the latter there is no advance intent to destroy an embryo.

It's a pretty fine line to tread, but I am both pro-choice, pro-fertility clinics, and against embryonic stem cell research...at least outside of the conditions I detailed previously. I'm also in favor of capital punishment....just to confuse you even more.

Therefore, there should not be any spares lying around for scientific use.  Further, allowing spares to be donated/sold to embryotic research puts pressure on the clinics to maintain a high number of zygotes per fertility attempt, since they are the only supplier.  This creates a motive for them to not only "accidentally" create additional zygotes as a byproduct of the process, but to be proactive in the effort.

You've explained the slippery slope of using fertility clinic embryos, and again reinforce my position that doing so would require monitoring to avoid de facto production.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Roac]

Except that the UN is full of a) people profiting from the sanctions placed on Iraq b) weak willed countries who would rather piss fire into a vat of gasoline than fight, and c) held in check by France whos record on war speaks for itself.

From their pov, the US isn't an angel they enjoy working with either, since we tend to ignore, politically, anyone who disagrees with us or financially (and sometimes militarilly) strongarm people who take stands against us.

Point being, a good leader works with what he's got, knowing that there are faults, and doing his best to work through the issues.  That the US doesn't says a lot (negative) about our country's character.

[Dark Vengeance]

Because really, all this stuff is a minor dick-measuring contest at this point. Saddam had ties to terrorism, aided terrorists, was in material breach of UN 1441, and was believed to be an imminent threat to our national security.

By who? Who exactly believed he was an imminent threat? I didn't. Neither did the CIA, or the Pentagon.

How about Russia's Vladimir Putin?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155802/posts

And before you go attacking Free Republic as being biased, that's an AP story.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

More liberal rewriting of history.  The President did not hammer home repeatedly that Iraq and AQ were working together to do anything.  

Yes he did. State of the Union. EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATION PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER THAT. He even mentioned it in the fucking debates. He's still trying to claim they are connected.

Nice way to change the debate again.  HE SAID THEY ARE CONNECTED.  I SAID THEY ARE CONNECTED.  THE 9/11 COMISSION SAID THEY WERE CONNECTED.  You're the only one claiming there was no connection.  Furthermore you're implying that Bush OVERSTATED the connection, saying all the time that they were working together, which he did not.

The 9/11 report you quoted, the very pieces you are using as evidence to say that AQ and Iraq were connected says that they had NO COLLABORATIVE OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP.

Yes, and the 9/11 report I quoted documents that THEY WERE CONNECTED.  Collaborative operational relationship is an evaluation of the strength of the relatiionship.  How many times do we have to go over this?  Are you to stupid to see there's a distinction here?

I knew this guy once.  We talked from time to time.  We have mutual friends.  A few times we even made plans to work on some things together, but circumstances changed so they never really materialized.  Might we work together in the future if something comes up?  Yes.  Is there a "collaborative operational relationship" between us?  No.  Are we connected?  Yes.  Might we work together in the future?  Yes.  If someone claimed there was no connection between us, would that someone be a moron?  Yes.

Bruce

You fucking troll. Yes, it's obvious at this point that you are trolling.

If that is the litmus test for going to war, we better prepare to LIGHT THE FUCKING MIDDLE EAST ON FIRE IN ITS ENTIRETY. Saddam had as much connection with AQ as he did with say, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Iran, or Syria. Some guys from each of those countries got together and they talked. They might have decided to work together in the future or they might have decided not to.

Shit, Saddam had been working with OPEC. Better bomb them motherfuckers too, 'cos who knows when they'll take off after the US.

Fuck, you might as well say Saddam has a connection with Israel that's as strong as his connection with Al-Qaeda. After all, even though Saddam hates Israel, he's talked directly to them before, even threatened to blow them up. Which is just about as strong a connection as Saddam has with AQ.

Having a 'connection' like you describe is not fucking enough to send a country to a war that has cost over $200 billion dollars and over 1,000 American lives. We're talking about the most grave goddamn action a country can take and you are saying that it's ok to base that action on the fact that a possible enemy might have talked a different, yet not similarly-motivated enemy at one or two occassions even though NOTHING came of those talks?

Connections generally speaking connect to something concrete. What you are describing is:

Saddam: "Heya Mohammed, still hate those fucking US guys?"

Mohammed: "Yeah, those fucking bastards killed my father. Let's do lunch."

Saddam: "Yeah, we'll do lunch, you camelfucker, when you realize Allah isn't against my raping and pillaging the Iraqi people."

Mohammed: "We'll get you next, bitch. See ya."

Saddam: "Yeah, see ya."

Bring out the fucking Nukes, I think there's a connection!

[Margalis]

How about Russia's Vladimir Putin?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155802/posts

And before you go attacking Free Republic as being biased, that's an AP story.

Is this the part where I play Bush and say that we don't base our foriegn policy on the whims of other countries?

Personally I would go with our own intelligence, that includes the info from Putin, rather than Putin on his own. If we thought that information was compelling and reliable, that would have shown up in our own intelligence.

Our own intelligence did not consider Iraq an imminent threat. Agree or disagree?

[Roac]

When you go into a fertility clinic, you go in with the intent of creating a human being. You don't go in saying "cmon honey, let's go destroy some embryos today".

It comes down to what your values are.  I was not making a personal judgement that fertility clincs were immoral; only that the statement made was not logically consistant.  I take it for granted (although a few would disagree with this) that reproduction, in itself, is not immoral (taken out of any context of marriage, age, culture, etc).  Although there is a high failure rate for natural zygotes, there is also built into that no intent to at any point destroy them (again, without more context).  However, with a fertility clinic, there is an up-front intent to destroy zygotes.  It is openly stated that the doctors will create more zygotes than are neccessary, and the remaining healty zygotes will be actively destroyed.  

There are a couple options at this point.  If you accept absolute morality (Jewish, Christian, Muslem, etc), you don't have a lot of choice - it's immoral.  Even if you/your wife can't have kids and this is the only way, too bad.  If you feel morality is relative, then you've more freedom.  If part of your standards are that it's unethical to create an embryo with the intent of destroying it, then a fertility clinic is unethical.  If that same person comes back to say that "no, in this case it's ethical", they're either being illogical (due to special pleading), or the rules to determine morality weren't all stated.

[HaemishM]

I think I'd rather take the chance that producing embryos for research purposes is immoral than take the chance I'll die of some horrible disease that might be cured with the research. While the thought may be icky, I think such research could be very beneficial, and any oversight on the process that is needed would be worth the effort.

[Dark Vengeance]

Is this the part where I play Bush and say that we don't base our foriegn policy on the whims of other countries?

It wasn't a whim, it was a warning. Thanks for playing though.

Personally I would go with our own intelligence, that includes the info from Putin, rather than Putin on his own. If we thought that information was compelling and reliable, that would have shown up in our own intelligence.

Our own intelligence did not consider Iraq an imminent threat. Agree or disagree?

Let me preface this by reminding you that Al Qaeda is not the only source of terrorism on Earth.

Ties to terrorism. Past aid to terrorism. Intel from countries around the world that believed he had WMD in violation of UN sanctions. A warning from Russia about an Iraqi terror plot against US interests.

Not to mention a huge pile of rubble where the WTC once stood, a fucking hole in the Pentagon, an economy in shambles, and 3000 dead Americans sitting in the back of Bush's mind about the last time we underestimated a terrorist threat.

Explain to me again why, given what we knew at the time, we should have sat on our hands and spent a few more months kissing French derriere?

By the way, if you want to continue the dick-waving about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, you may want to send some vitriol over to the other side of the aisle as well.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Even Democrats agreed that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Margalis]

It was a yes or no question. Seriously.

I didn't ask if you think the war is justified, obviously you do.

As others have pointed out, plenty of other places have helped advance terrorism much more directly than Iraq. Sudan supplied very active cooperation. (And in fact, we blew up a factory of theirs under Clinton)

[personman]

How about Russia's Vladimir Putin?

Personally I would go with our own intelligence, that includes the info from Putin, rather than Putin on his own. If we thought that information was compelling and reliable, that would have shown up in our own intelligence.

Putin is not a world leader in whom we should be entrusting our own credibility.  Like France, Russia has a vested interest in weakening the US's overall credibility enough for their respective countries to re-assert themselves as superpowers.

Reading Woodward's "Plan of Attack" exposes to us exactly how thoroughly both France and Russia played us (and played Saudi too for that matter).  Chapters 27 and 28 are particularly illuminating.

Still another example of this President's mistakes in judgement.

[Dark Vengeance]

If part of your standards are that it's unethical to create an embryo with the intent of destroying it, then a fertility clinic is unethical.

The goal...the intent...is not to destroy embryos. The intent is to create a child. The destruction of embryos does occur in this process, yes...but it is not the intended function of what they do. If it were an option to extract one egg, and one sperm, and create one viable embryo, I'm quite certain that the clinics would do so.

It's like saying that the intent of using fossil fuels is to pollute the environment.....it's an unfortunate side effect, not the core intention.

But this is getting off track.

Why do fertility clinics create embryos? To create a human child. Why do they efrtilize so many eggs? Because that is what it takes to produce a viable embryo.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Roac]

it's an unfortunate side effect, not the core intention.

Yes, if you augment your first claim with the moral justification of "the ends justify the means", it's a moral act and logically consistant.

[SirBruce]

Again, I'm still waiting for YOU to admit that your statement was literally false, and you were simply exagerrating to increase the emotional impact of your statement in order to illustrate a point.

I didn't make the original statement, so you'll have to keep waiting.

I'm not talking about the original statement; I'm talking about your statement.

Still waiting.

Bruce

[ahoythematey]

So are you implying then that serious issues can all be reduced to little blurbs depicting a world of only black & white aspects, Roac?

[SirBruce]

If your neighbor seemed to be willing to offer you safe haven if the police came looking for you, or if some of your conversations were discussions on killin sprees on mutually agreeable targets? I suspect the Police would be very interested in arresting you.

Only if it was those ideas were agreed upon,

Not by everyone.  If that were the case, we wouldn't need trials, or juries.  Heck, the prosecution is even free to argue DIFFERENT THEORIES OF THE CRIME.  Multiple people can be convicted of doing the same thing.  Universal agreement is not a requirement.

and even then with limitation.  I certainly wouldn't be executed.

That's a red herring.  Saddam hasn't been executed yet, either.  Furthermore, that analogy is intimately tied up with US laws and/or Iraqi laws.  What's at issue here is whether or not you'd be "invaded" and taken into custody.

Bruce

[Dark Vengeance]

it's an unfortunate side effect, not the core intention.

Yes, if you augment your first claim with the moral justification of "the ends justify the means", it's a moral act and logically consistant.

Each one of those eggs is fertilized with the intention of creating a living human being. It is done with the knowledge that the embryo may later be destroyed.

Compare that to embryos created for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.....they are not created with the intent of creating a living human being. It is done with the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the embryo WILL BE destroyed.

If you cannot see a difference, then subtlety is absolutely beyond you.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Mesozoic]

That's a red herring. Saddam hasn't been executed yet, either.

[GOP Mode]
Bruce thinks that evil dictators should be pursued in court!  Only weak men coddle terrorists!  
[/GOP Mode]

[HaemishM]

Compare that to embryos created for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.....they are not created with the intent of creating a living human being. It is done with the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the embryo WILL BE destroyed.

It is also done with the idea that another human life might be saved by the research done.

[Samwise]

Compare that to embryos created for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.....they are not created with the intent of creating a living human being. It is done with the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the embryo WILL BE destroyed.

It is also done with the idea that another human life might be saved by the research done.

It's gauche to make Nazi comparisons, especially during political discussion, but they did perpetrate all sorts of horrors in the name of medical research to save human lives.  Once you start justifying the taking of one life by your intent to save others, you're on rocky ground.

Mind you, that's starting from the presupposition that a human embryo is a human life and potentially worthy of preservation, which is a whole separate topic.  I'm just pointing out that the intention of saving human lives doesn't justify everything, so you can't automatically lay that card on the table and declare moral victory.

[Roac]

So are you implying then that serious issues can all be reduced to little blurbs depicting a world of only black & white aspects, Roac?

No; at no point was I speaking for myself, and stated quite clearly (I thought) that I was not making judgement on the issue.  I don't personally agree with moral relativism, but for those who do (such as DV apparentoly), morality is defined by the rules the individual sets up for the self.  The logical requirement is intrinsic; illogical statements do not describe anything, so cannot be the basis for one's morality.  If an item passes the requirements for morality, it's moral; if not, it is not.  I see no reason why an individual who adheres to moral relativism would have trouble making such a distinction, since they are answerable to no one but theirself, except when they don't have a good grasp of their own morality.

[Dark Vengeance]

Compare that to embryos created for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.....they are not created with the intent of creating a living human being. It is done with the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the embryo WILL BE destroyed.

It is also done with the idea that another human life might be saved by the research done.

See, now *THAT* deals with "do the ends justify the means?". Roac, I hope you're taking notes here. There's a quiz at the end.

Haemish, as anyone who calls for the use of discarded fertility clinic embryos can tell you, it isn't necessary to create embryos specifically for the purpose of stem cell research. If they are created to try and make a human life, and when that doesn't work out, used to save human lives via research....I'm perfectly okay with that.

Hell, if fetus brains yielded some potentially life-saving material, I'd be all for harvesting the brains of aborted fetuses....but I wouldn't go advocating that we impregnate women for the sole purpose of producing that material. Sorry to be so graphic, but that's the parallel.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Roac]

Universal agreement is not a requirement.

You missed the point, gj.  If you come talk to me about killing people, and I refuse, I'm not guilty of anything.  I'm only guilty of conspiracy to commit murder if I agree to the plan.  Technically, I'm only guilty if two or more people agree AND one of the group takes one or more steps to enact the plan, but I'm not even asking for that second step (which is a requirement for conviction in the US).  Point is, the two of them wouldn't even agree to collaborate to take action.  

That's a red herring. Saddam hasn't been executed yet, either.

The government as as sovereign entity was.  That sovereignty is dead, replaced with one of the US' choosing.

[WayAbvPar]

Hell, if fetus brains yielded some potentially life-saving material, I'd be all for harvesting the brains of aborted fetuses....but I wouldn't go advocating that we impregnate women for the sole purpose of producing that material. Sorry to be so graphic, but that's the parallel.

I think that is extreme. An aborted fetus was maturing inside a womb, and may eventually have a chance at life. You also involve another person (the woman carrying the fetus).

 A zygote created in a lab by combining a sperm and egg will never become anything else unless it is implanted into a womb. It is like germinating a seed and then not planting it. Is it a plant? Not so much.

On some level I guess I can comprehend that there is a viewpoint that subscribes to the 'creating zygotes for science is bad' point of view, but I certainly cannot understand it. I don't get why taking cells that are eventually discarded naturally from the body (through nocturnal emissions for sperm, through menstruation for eggs) and combining them to assist in groundbreaking medical research is a bad thing. As long as no one is forced to give up their cells, as long as no one is impregnated with zygotes against their will, as long as zygotes being used for procreative purposes aren't 'redirected' without consent...where is the evil?