What is the reply from ESC researchers?
"we are not going to slow down to do that, not at this point"(Good thing we have progress, wouldn't want morality to interefere!) Let's apply sed to this ethical dilemma. What is ESCR? It is dissecting a living person to make use of the constituent parts. When we do that to grown people, it's called "vivisection". That would never happen, you say? The Nazis and Japanese did just that to "undesirable" people during World War II.
How do our brave, new researchers justify themselves?
"But these embryos were destined to be destroyed"Well, in the long term, we're all destined to be destroyed. But, let's step back from that and look at death row inmates. They're destined to be destroyed on a determined schedule. So we have our sed pattern:
sed 's/embryo/inmate/g'What is the logical, scientific difference between vivisection of inmates and ESCR? Inmates are more developed, but do our rights come from our level of development? The real medicinal uses for vivisection are greater than any shown for ESCR (which has only "potential" uses, all successful "stem cell" treatments use adult stem cells - which includes cord blood/placental sources). Data from World War II atrocities was finally accepted, due to its unusual value. And organs harvested from inmates could save many lives. Embryos don't feel pain, you say? We can anesthetize the inmate, it will be just like going to sleep.
sed 's/ESCR/vivisection/g'
What about morality? Inmates are grown people who know about right and wrong, and who have done wrong. Embryos are unable to tell these things, and haven't done anything to anyone. This fact is used against them to justify their destruction! We destroy the innocent because they are innocent, should we protect the guilty? Make the irony complete?
But I doubt anything will come of this. CNN says that 34% of Floridian Republicans support abortion. No wonder Democrats don't care about pro-life voters. Republicans can't even be made to care. And this is killing people who have developed for several weeks. How much hope can the five day old (after conception) have? (Although there are people pushing for the right to kill newborns...)
17 comments:
Do you support in vitro fertilization?
Yes, but it must be done in a moral fashion.
That is, embryos must be created one at a time, and all must be implanted.
If you can only afford one round, make sure there is someone ready to adopt any extra embryos.
If you are going to implant multiple embryos, you must be prepared to carry all to term (no "reductions"). This should limit implantation to two (maybe three), for safety of all involved.
Apart from your lack of understanding of how the process works, let's go further.
If an IVF clinic were burning, would you rush in to save the frozen embryos?
"Apart from your lack of understanding of how the process works, let's go further."
What do you mean?
"If an IVF clinic were burning, would you rush in to save the frozen embryos?"
Maybe. Do I think people are actually going to respect them and see them implanted? Or are they going to be used in experiments? Can I overcome my fear of death? Do I think I can make it? Are the firefighters coming?
"What do you mean?"
The rate of success for IVF is pretty low and that's with the measures that they take. Creating embryos one at a time would be so time consuming and impractical that it would make IVF not even worth doing for anyone. The success rate would plummet from the low that it is at now. They implant multiple embryos now for the reason that the chances of just one connecting to the uterine wall is pretty low.
"Maybe. Do I think people are actually going to respect them and see them implanted? Or are they going to be used in experiments? Can I overcome my fear of death? Do I think I can make it? Are the firefighters coming?"
What does it matter how they will be used? What I see here is that you are hemming and hawing because you would not really rush in to save these embryos. C'mon. Would you decide not to save a child simply because you think the child's parents don't respect the child? If you are making the case that the IVF embryo is no different from a born child, then I find your response to be rather weak. If it were a daycare, would you rush in? Why would that be any different for embryos at an IVF clinic? Yet, from your answer it seems that's exactly the case. It is different.
"so time consuming and impractical"
Economics are independent of morality.
"you are hemming and hawing"
I don't think so. I don't go to Africa and try to feed all the starving orphans. I can't be everywhere, I can't help everyone. I have to do what I can.
I'm not saying embryos are "no different" from a born child, but I am saying that we should be logical and consistent in our application of rights.
"Economics are independent of morality."
I agree, and that's a good point. But, your idea of morality would make the process de facto impossible. So, you may as well say that you wish to do away with IVF clinics.
"I don't think so. I don't go to Africa and try to feed all the starving orphans. I can't be everywhere, I can't help everyone. I have to do what I can."
And, in the situation, you would have an opportunity to save some "babies" from a burning building. If it were a day care center you would be much more willing to go in than an IVF clinic.
"I'm not saying embryos are "no different" from a born child, but I am saying that we should be logical and consistent in our application of rights."
OK, so how can we be logical and consistent if they are different (born children vs. embryos)? Before, you seemed to be saying that there was no difference, now you admit there is. So, how much difference is there? What makes them different? Perhaps you should think about this not just from a religious/moral standpoint, but also from a legal standpoint and a medical/scientific standpoint.
As an aside, do you believe that aborted fetuses/embryos go to heaven?
"OK, so how can we be logical and consistent if they are different (born children vs. embryos)?"
I'd like people to just be honest. It'd make it a lot easier to tell if people are just ignorant, or if they are truly anti-life. Call abortion the "citizen's death penalty for loitering inside someone else". Call ESC "parents donating their children to be carved up for science experiments" (which is where the technology is right now).
If people can call a spade a spade, and still be comfortable with it, then so be it.
I'm just trying to figure out how 50% of people can be in favor of the death penalty for loitering children.
Oops, punched publish too soon...
"So, how much difference is there?"
It is a difference of development and growth. We generally treat the youngest and least developed people with extra care and protection.
"As an aside, do you believe that aborted fetuses/embryos go to heaven?"
Yes. I'll go out on a theological limb and say that I (personally) believe children will likely grow up during the millennium. This would account for how it is some people will join the devil at the end of the millennium for a final rebellion (Revelation 20:7-8). But this is highly speculative stuff...
"I'd like people to just be honest."
In that sense, perhaps you can answer my question then? How can we be logically consistent if they are different?
"It'd make it a lot easier to tell if people are just ignorant, or if they are truly anti-life."
How offensive. No one is anti-life. Your flippant dismissal of my position is not appreciated.
"Call abortion the "citizen's death penalty for loitering inside someone else". Call ESC "parents donating their children to be carved up for science experiments" (which is where the technology is right now)."
By that logic, why don't we call the "pro-life" people the "citizen's brigade for enforcing their morality on others and restricting women's rights because they want to punish women for having out-of-wedlock sex, and then don't care about what happens to the kid after birth"? See, two can play this game, and it's not constructive at all.
"I'm just trying to figure out how 50% of people can be in favor of the death penalty for loitering children."
Because that's not what it is. You said yourself that there is a difference between an embryo and child, and some of us are able to understand that and see multiple angles and come to the conclusion that we think is best. There are many factors to consider here, like the rights of the mother, how she got impregnated, the health of the mother, the developmental stage of the embryo/fetus/whatever, etc. It's not a cut and dried, black and white thing.
Further, no one is pro-abortion. Abortion is the best choice in a bunch of lousy choices.
"It is a difference of development and growth. We generally treat the youngest and least developed people with extra care and protection."
OK, so the difference is development and growth. At what point would you say that an embryo becomes a born child, at birth, or is there some kind of continuum. Personally, I vote the latter.
"Yes."
OK, so if abored fetuses/embryos go to heaven, why don't you support abortion? Every aborted fetus/embryo gets the express train to god. Why is that a bad thing? If Xians are supposed to help people be saved, then why don't Xians go around and kick pregnant women in the stomach to save all their unborn babies? Think of how many souls could be saved.
"How can we be logically consistent if they are different?"
(as I said)
It is a difference of development and growth. We generally treat the youngest and least developed people with extra care and protection.
"How offensive. No one is anti-life. Your flippant dismissal of my position is not appreciated."
What do you call people in favor of the destruction of human life? Either you are ignorant of what life is, or you are anti-life. Be proud of being anti-life, if that is what you believe. Is it not a worthwhile prospect that you support?
"By that logic, why don't we call the 'pro-life' people"
All government policy is enforcing morality on people. And I find it frightening that people think women should have a right to kill their children. It's not about sex outside wedlock - lots of married women have abortions.
nedbrek,
"(as I said)
It is a difference of development and growth. We generally treat the youngest and least developed people with extra care and protection."
And, as I said, this doesn't talk about how to be consistent. You decried people for not being consistent, so I asked you how to do that. You are telling me what is different, not how to be consistent.
"What do you call people in favor of the destruction of human life? Either you are ignorant of what life is, or you are anti-life. Be proud of being anti-life, if that is what you believe. Is it not a worthwhile prospect that you support?"
You yourself also destroy human life, every time you scratch or walk or shower, etc. Oops. Perhaps I should call you anti-life as well?
Either way, this is ridiculous. You've said yourself that there's a difference between embryos and newborns. And, as I said, no one takes this lightly and is pro-abortion, so your strawmen characterizations are simply that and completely worthless.
"All government policy is enforcing morality on people. And I find it frightening that people think women should have a right to kill their children. It's not about sex outside wedlock - lots of married women have abortions."
All government policy is enforcing morality on people? You have a warped sense of the role of government. And, I don't find it frightening that women are allowed to choose what to do with their bodies and terminate an undeveloped clump of cells that has no brain function, no cognitive ability, etc. In short, they have none of the characteristics that make one human, except the requisite number of chromosomes.
Do you think that women that have been raped should be forced to carry to term? If you don't, then you are just as much a monster as that which you decry. (Actually, if you do then you are quite the monster in my estimation, but not in yours.) How far are you willing to go with this? Should a women be constantly reminded, every day of her life, that she was violently violated (probably beaten and hurt both physically and mentally by it)? Should she have to live through that day in and day out simply because you wish to tell her that you know what is best for her and for the clump on cells in her body than she knows? That you feel the right to intrude on her private life and her relationship with her doctor because your morals supersede all others? And, when that child is born, what then? An unwanted child is brought into the world, and I find that most anti-abortionists don't give a crap after that. They are so concerned with human life until it comes out and then it's forgotten, especially if it's a minority, like an illegal alien. You may not personally believe this, but those are your bedfellows. And, these are the same people that are backing a president that vetoes health care for children. Pro-life, don't make me laugh.
BTW,
Let's say you got your way and abortion was outlawed. What should be the penalty? How much jail time should the woman get?
"What should be the penalty? How much jail time should the woman get?"
There would need to be a study on how best to provide a disincentive for breaking the law, while remaining compassionate. I feel a woman who gets an abortion is very much a victim, and pays a heavy price regardless of any legal outcome. Very likely, no penalty would be needed for the woman.
The doctor should be heavily punished. I favor monetary/economic penalties over jail time. Seizing savings or future income, or requiring unpaid (or minimally paid) service in community hospitals would be an excellent disincentives. There is also the possibility of revoking licenses.
nedbrek,
"There would need to be a study on how best to provide a disincentive for breaking the law, while remaining compassionate. I feel a woman who gets an abortion is very much a victim, and pays a heavy price regardless of any legal outcome. Very likely, no penalty would be needed for the woman.
The doctor should be heavily punished. I favor monetary/economic penalties over jail time. Seizing savings or future income, or requiring unpaid (or minimally paid) service in community hospitals would be an excellent disincentives. There is also the possibility of revoking licenses."
I'm sorry, I thought you said that abortion was equal to murder. Would you also advocate that other murderers be allowed to simply pay monetary fines? And, to absolve the woman? That's hypocritical in the extreme.
Of course, I know why you are absolving the woman. It's because you recognize that it is a difficult thing to do. But, you are ignoring the fact that she made the choice to terminate a life (she's anti-life I suppose?) Is the doctor responsible for her decision to come to the office and get an abortion? Yet, you'll punish the doctor for her decision? What if she doesn't go to a clinic but instead uses a coat hanger? What then? Would you punish her then?
Murder is unjustified taking of a human life. How is abortion different? And we have lots of different "degrees" of murder, down to manslaughter, which can have very little penalty.
If there were cases of extreme prejudice, stiffer penalties could always be enacted. I doubt it would be necessary.
nedbrek,
"Murder is unjustified taking of a human life. How is abortion different? And we have lots of different "degrees" of murder, down to manslaughter, which can have very little penalty.
If there were cases of extreme prejudice, stiffer penalties could always be enacted. I doubt it would be necessary."
Yet, even though a woman commits murder by getting an abortion, you would let her off the hook? Why are you so lenient on women who get abortions?
And, what about the doctors? You claim you only want them to pay a fine? No jail time for murder? You do realize that this would have to be classified as premeditated murder, right? This is a capital crime in some states. If you don't agree that the woman and the doctor and doctor's staff should be held for murder 1 charges and possible capital charges, then you are being inconsistent. (Although I admit that you might be against the death penalty like I am, but you should at least think the charge should be murder 1.)
Post a Comment