Again…as Bob said, it’s tiresome to claim over and over that there is no rational basis for a pro life position. If you wish to disagree philosophically about the criteria used to extend personhood status to a fetus/embryo/ “glob of tissue”…then fine…
…to claim that there is no rational basis (by that I assume you mean scientific basis) to form a pro life opinion is to say that because you disagree with the pro life position, that there can be no rationale behind their position (a notion that even a pro choice camper, Jodi…disputed see her comments here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38786)…
If you were looking for just one science based rationale…you could try here
one of many approaches to the issue. I would expect you to disagree with some of the implications drawn from the science…thats not the same thing as saying there IS no science…
Yep, I’ve read it. She raises some good points, though I’m not sure it’s the best argument I’ve ever read for the pro-life stance.
You offer consciousness–a mind, a brain–as the true boundary for where life deserves protection, and I see you think this is logical (in contrast to the pro-life position). Isn’t this, at its basis, an axiom? Why does consciousness deserve protection? Peel away all the artifice, and you will find that at the foundation of your belief is a truth you hold to be self-evident–you CAN’T prove it. You can prove its expedience, its convenience, its “acceptance” by lots and lots of people, but you can prove it to be “true.” (BTW, I agree with consciousness as “proof” of human life–just not the only proof.)
And if it is axiomatic, why is it not as valid to state a pro-life position: a being that will inexorably progress toward consciousness–if left unmolested–is likewise worthy of protection and respect?
BTW, I’m not saying we shouldn’t subject this to honest and rational debate. All I’m saying is I grow weary of all the “we’re logical, they’re not” smugness.
Fair question. As I mentioned earlier though, I don’t think that the debate is over what a human being is, rather it is over what defines “personhood”. For example, in another thread…someone who is pro choice (not, I think, representative of ALL pro choice folks) staked his claim on dependency. He said that he didnt care if the individual could quote Shakespeare, if the individual was dependent on ONE person…then that individual did not have a unique right to life.
Most folks (perhaps not all) will grant that the fetus is “alive”
Most folks (not all) will grant that the fetus is human in a genetic sense (as opposed to bovine etc…)
Most pro choice folks (not all) have a higher threshold for extending unique rights. Usually, the threshold takes the form of viability…sentience…or brain development. My belief is that this is a philosophical position to take. The link I provided above covers the developmental ground …and I think makes a fairly strong case against the criteria usually used most pro choice folks.
So I guess I’ll take the cheap and easy way out and quote the author
"III. When does a human person begin?
The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question—not a scientific question. I will not go into great detail here, but “personhood” begins when the human being begins—at fertilization. "
Well, that settles it! God is the biggest, baddest and best abortionist of them all! Seeing as at least half of all successful fertilizations vanish into menses when failing to connect with the uterine wall.
Another problem with this definition: Why is it that, if we have humanity in a zygote, when the aforementioned happens, almost all cultures will simply handle this “death” with a tampon.
Whereas is a child dies, we have funerals and what not.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, two weeks, six days, 22 hours, 48 minutes and 0 seconds.
6958 cigarettes not smoked, saving $869.75.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 3 hours, 50 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
I’m not sure that I’m comfortable with using cultural norms as my definition for humanity or personhood…don’t think Dred Scott was too keen on it either
To address your reference to God as the ultimate abortionist …if we are to link biological events with Gods will…God is one mean son of a bitch for causing the enormous amount of cancer…deformed babies…and fatherless (or motherless) children in this world
Perhaps the role of God and “bad things happening to good people” is best left for another thread…
That can’t be entirely the answer. When my wife had a miscarriage recently, we were saddened by the loss of a potential baby. But we didn’t have a funeral.
Wow, that’s about 25% of what I expected. I thought it would go the way of Lupron.
(Lupron is a GnRH antagonist, which is used in prostate cancer to inhibit testosterone secretion. It is sufficient therapy in some patients, and is given as a shot every four months–at $4500/shot. (Yes, there are four digits in that number.) The same effect is acheieved by an orchiopexy, or a removal of the part of the testes that secret testosterone. This is a one-day procedure that costs $2500, all told.)
Here’s a question–should/will insurance companies pay for this? On the one hand, it’s an elective procedure. On the other hand, it is clearly more cost-effective to the insurer to do this than to proceed with the pregnancy. Should Medicaid pay for it? After all, the drug was approved by the government, and refusing to pay for it would be a moral judgement, IMO.
(I’m trying my best to keep this from being one more re-hash of the usual abortion debate. I’m trying really hard.)
The fact that you (or anyone else in a similar position) does or does not have a funeral is a reflection on your belief system, not on whether or not your beliefs are correct or consistent.
Wait… are you guys trying to claim that any significant portion of the population has a funeral after a miscarriage??? I would say perhaps some extremely small minority, but maybe I’ve let a sheltered life. And I imagine that the sense of loss would intensify the closer to term the baby is at the time of miscarriage, maybe leveling off after the fetus could have survived outside of the womb.
I don’t speak for Bob…but my point (as in my reply to Satan) was that cultural norms/practices don’t define humanity/personhood for me. One reason (not the only) is the transient nature of many norms/practices…my earlier example of the Dred Scott decision…a decision looked upon today (at least, by most people) with scorn.
I don’t call your reaction to a miscarriage “abnormal”, neither do I let it (or ANY other cultural practices) define humanity/personhood …or someones dignity/worth for me.
There are plenty of groups of individuals who have been relegated to second class status based upon cultural norms/practices
Nope. But what I am saying is similar to an earlier post I made. However prevalent this is or isn’t has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not that practice (or non-practice) is consistent or appropriate or ethical or whatever. It simply reflects what those people believe (and also speaks to any inconsistencies in their beliefs). I also don’t believe a funeral is necessary to “prove” grief over the loss of human life.
Just to make sure I’m not being obscure here, I’m reacting to Satan’s earlier point, which seemed to be that because some (not all) pro-life folks who have miscarriages don’t have funerals, that means their belief that a fetus is human must be wrong. (Satan, sorry if that misrepresents your position; I’m just stating my interpretation.)
Well, you’re already aware of where we pro-choice people stand, and why…
So for you, personhood is nothing more then a living cell? Now that cloning offers the potential for every cell to become a unique individual, is that murder?
When a fertility clinic provides a childless couple with a baby by fertilizing a couple of dozen eggs, then discarding the rest once implantation occurs, is that murder?
I have to say that I am unimpressed with the idea of potentiality of personhood equaling personhood.
Just because something could one day become a human does not make it a human.
Hm. Perhaps the pro-life movement will grind to a halt (or grow exponentially) once cloning becomes commonplace. Each member will give up their body to the cloning vats so each cell can have the potential to express itself as a human being.
=>Hmmm thought you might know the difference between an embryo and a “living cell”…please refer back to the entire linked cite that I gave for a more comprehensive discussion of human embryology…
=>What “you” define as potentiality of personhood…I call personhood (not sure that we would ever resolve this philosophical point)
=> the issues surrounding cloning…in vitro fertilization et al are a bit more complicated than the current thread (at least for me), but in short, yes there are ethical problems associated with some the scenarios you mentioned. This link covers some of this from a Catholic social teaching viewpoint (which I share…although I would think that there would be other non-catholics who might also have ethical problems with this)
I find it positively silly that people who are opposed to women having a choice over whether to terminate their pregnancy have a problem with the “anti-choice” term.
anti = against choice = choice
against choice = anti+choice = anti-choice.
Want to talk about ridiculous monikers? Let’s talk about the term ‘pro-life.’
The fact that you don’t favor abortion is no reflection of your treatment of or respect for life or the quality of it among children or adults. You could be a child molestor, spouse abuser, even a serial killer, but, if you are opposed to abortion, you get to wear the “pro-life” badge?
And it gives the impression that others that favor a woman being able to choose whether she will be pregnant or not are “anti-life,” which is insulting.
Some philosophically disagree with the idea that an embryo or even a fetus up to a certain point is a person. Some think a woman’s right to be in control of her own body is inviolate. Insinuating that people with such views are “anti-life” or calling them murderers is a poor reflection on those making the pseudo-omniscient and pseudo-pious accusations.
and quote the author