|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 51 of 254:
| 
Mar 8 00:42 UTC 2006 |
The scenario getting play in the blog world is the "burning building"
scenario: you're in a room of a burning building with a 2-year-old
toddler and a container which holds 5 human blastulas. You can only
carry one of them. Which one do you save?
(Since I know grexers are too lazy to use google, I'll mention that a
blastula is an early stage of embryonic development which has on the
order of 128 undifferentiated cells.)
|
kingjon
|
|
response 52 of 254:
|
Mar 8 00:45 UTC 2006 |
I'd probably save the toddler, since he or she would be the one brought most to
my attention, but I don't say that my answer is morally correct.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 53 of 254:
|
Mar 8 00:54 UTC 2006 |
Fair enough. So far I have never heard anyone say he would save the embryos;
they all either pick the todder or refuse to answer.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 54 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:01 UTC 2006 |
Blastulas - and embryos - are hardly "persons". When an ovum is fertilized
it becomes in effect the blueprint for a person. Eventually a structure is
made from the blueprint, which becomes a person. I see no loss in losing a
blueprint when they are easily available. Others must judge it this way too,
if they choose to save the toddler rather than the blastulas.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 55 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:02 UTC 2006 |
However, that reminds me of a sequence in a novel by Lois McMaster Bujold
called _Barrayar_ in which the main character goes (without permission) into
enemy territory with a few friends to save her son, who is in a "uterine
replicator," and ends up having the enemy commander beheaded.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 56 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:05 UTC 2006 |
Curl slipped. Re his point: The life-begins-at-conception viewpoint says that a
fertilized egg is a person. Besides, as I understand it, some religions (at
least Judaism but perhaps others) don't consider children to be full persons
until they have attained a certain age. (What I'm thinking of in Judaism is
that children don't take responsibility for keeping the Law until their bar or
bat mitzvah, at age 13 IIRC.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 57 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:13 UTC 2006 |
We should be talking facts, here, not religous mythology, which is peculiar
to the separate religions. Life is continuous, it doesn't "begin at
conception", and its not *life* people are talking about: every cell is life
and I see no compunction not to cut out cells when it suits people. Besides,
thousands are lost daily naturally.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 58 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:15 UTC 2006 |
Well, duh. We all know that life-begins-at-conception people say that a
fertilized egg is a person. The question is, do they really believe
this? Is this belief reflected in all of their moral choices, or only
when they find it convenient?
An similar scenario would be to take the PETA position "A rat is a
pig is a dog is a boy" and construct a similar scenario where you have a
choice between saving a 2-year-old toddler or a cage with 5 rats.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 59 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:19 UTC 2006 |
Life is continuous, but the argument is not when life begins, but rather
when do those cells become a seperate person? Do we make this definition
based on observable developmental criteria, where we define personhood
at DNA uniqueness, brain pattern formation, or ability to survive
outside the womb? Or do we create social class constructs in which life
goes from property to personhood when it is birthed?
|
slynne
|
|
response 60 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:21 UTC 2006 |
I would save the rats! But only cos they dont scream as much as toddlers
do. But if it were a four or five year old, I'd prolly let the rats
burn. ;)
|
slynne
|
|
response 61 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:22 UTC 2006 |
But if were a question of embryos and a toddler, I guess it would depend
on how long I would have to entertain the toddler afterwards.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 62 of 254:
|
Mar 8 02:04 UTC 2006 |
#57: "We should be talking facts here" -- so give us the universally agreed
fact of when personhood begins, please!
Citing a religious example of one viewpoint is extremely relevant, since it
demonstrates one particular group of people's view of when personhood begins.
|
gull
|
|
response 63 of 254:
|
Mar 8 02:24 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:0: I think the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case.
Simple math says that neither side can be sure they have the votes to
settle the issue in their favor, and I also suspect Roberts and Alito
want to avoid the appearance of giving political payback to Bush, so I
think they'll decline to open this can of worms right now.
Re resp:50: I think it has to suck for all those unbaptized fertilized
eggs that end up going to Hell. Dozens of them for every successful
pregnancy, probably, since that's the way the human body seems to work.
Yup, that's a loving God for you.
|
keesan
|
|
response 64 of 254:
|
Mar 8 03:09 UTC 2006 |
I read that it is 50 to 90% of the fertilized eggs that don't develop properly
and get miscarried, or probably more because often more than one egg is
ovulated and fertilized, and if they both survive you get twin. In the case
of IVF, the proportion is lower.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 65 of 254:
|
Mar 8 03:13 UTC 2006 |
Re #63, par 2:
The standard (Protestant) Christian understanding is that those who have never
had sufficient mental capacity to understand the gospel go to heaven. (Those
with severe mental disabilities, for example. And this is also used in popular
sermons on "your pets will be in heaven with you.") If we define personhood
based on mental capacity I don't see how we can avoid making "murder of a
mentally disabled human being" a contradiction in terms.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 66 of 254:
|
Mar 8 03:19 UTC 2006 |
>The question is, do they really believe this? Is this belief reflected
>in all of their moral choices, or only when they find it convenient?
That's pretty much where I was headed. If "fetus" literally equals
"young child", and "abortion" equals "murder", then the anti-abortion
movement strikes me as rather half-assed. Shouldn't so-called "clinics"
where children are quite literally murdered on a daily basis be burned
to the ground? Shouldn't mothers who have their children killed be sent
to prison for life (along with parents and friends who assist them)?
Shouldn't "doctors" who murder children by ripping them to pieces get
the death penalty?
I suspect "life begins at conception" and "abortion is murder" are
little more than a way of avoiding difficult arguments--when does a
fetus become a person? is a potential person as deserving of protection
as an actual person? when should the needs of a fetus outweigh the
needs of its mother?--by turning a grey area into a black/white one.
grey area into a black/white one.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 67 of 254:
|
Mar 8 04:00 UTC 2006 |
re #65: If you really believed that, wouldn't aborting a fetus be an
act of love?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 68 of 254:
|
Mar 8 04:16 UTC 2006 |
In Michigan, if you assault a woman and cause her to have a miscarriage,
you go to jail for life.
|
drew
|
|
response 69 of 254:
|
Mar 8 06:41 UTC 2006 |
Re #49:
Life begins at erection.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 70 of 254:
|
Mar 8 10:25 UTC 2006 |
Re #67: No, because even in heaven (and, mind you, Catholics put such beings in
"Limbo" -- between Heaven and Hell, sort of an eternal dull nothingness) people
of that sort wouldn't be able to enjoy heaven to the fullest. If you *knew*
that a person would grow up to choose Hell, it could arguably be better for him
or her to never have been born, but there's no way for human beings to predict
that.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 254:
|
Mar 8 15:35 UTC 2006 |
The Catholics got rid of limbo.
If you put it into a "burning building" scenario then I suppose it means
that, given a choice between rescuing from a fire two people, one a
Christian and one a Buddhist, it would be morally preferable to rescue
the Buddhist because the Christian will go to heaven anyway, while the
Buddhist will not but may yet come to accept Jesus if he lives.
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 254:
|
Mar 8 15:46 UTC 2006 |
re #63 Roberts and Alito are on the Court for life, they have need to worry
about appearances or anything of the like. I think they'll take the case.
|
jep
|
|
response 73 of 254:
|
Mar 8 16:06 UTC 2006 |
re resp:51: I've never been in a burning room containing a young child
and a bunch of blastulas. I don't know why I would be in such
circumstances. I don't know why, if I was, I would be unable to get
both out of the building. And I don't know what any of it has to do
with abortion.
If I were in a burning building containing an assembly of people, I
would prioritize rescuing them in approximately this order:
1) Pregnant woman
2) Child
3) Other woman
4) Helpless man
5) Me
6) test tubes full of "blastulas" (if I knew what that was; I have in
the past, I do today, but there have been gaps; if the test tubes were
labeled "viable human fetuses" it would help me)
7) dog
8) cat
9) cockroach
10) Osama bin Laden
I'd give bonus points to some types of people such as relatives, people
I like, those who can be saved, those who could help me save others,
those with obvious societal merit, and so forth. The real world is
pretty complicated. I like to think I'd try to help everyone I could.
When it comes down to it, it's possible that I'd run away and say to
heck with anyone/anything else. Or panic and die.
|
jep
|
|
response 74 of 254:
|
Mar 8 16:07 UTC 2006 |
re resp:57: I think we are talking moral values here, aren't we?
People do and probably should base their values on their religion, if
they are religious.
|
richard
|
|
response 75 of 254:
|
Mar 8 16:16 UTC 2006 |
re #74 no, people should base their moral values on their *instincts* Basing
moral values on religion is tantamount to saying "base your moral values on
what someone else says" You need to go on instinct, on what you yourself
known instinctively is right or wrong
|