The connection between them is one that is mandated by the logical sequence of items:
Postulate: all human beings are worthy of legal and social protection to some degree
This is not created by recourse to favorable results that exist if we accept this postulate; it simply is offered as an indisputable first postulate. Now, you may not accept it as such; that’s fine.
That’s a perfectly workable approach. I simply don’t choose to sign up for it.
I wonder if there’s a vaccine for that?
(Note also that most abortion legalizers have seen the “identical DNA” argument countless times, and consider it well-refuted as a useful definition; you’re just seeing folks lobbing back what they consider an easy serve).
Daniel
HeLa cells are more different from Helen than normal sex-produced cells would be.
In your own mind perhaps. I fail to see the "gaping hole"s, and your position’s flaws are both unfixable and morally corrupt.
Blood in the water.
I’ve said many times before, Daniel, and will say again that there are damn few posters here who rise to your level of intelluctual honesty. No, you’re certainly not included in that broad characterization. And if all posters argued points with your approach and your unwillingness to advance an argument merely for the sake of conforming with your preconcieved notions, the Board would be much better off.
Any honest person with rudimentary comprehension and logic skills can read this thread and identify the garbage posts.
I’m no biologist, but I don’t see how that’s so, from a DNA perspective.
I may have missed something here, but how does requiring a salpingectomy “balance” the health and welfare of mother and ectopic embryo in a way that a salpingostomy or methotrexate treatment would not?
The only “balance” I can think of would be that since all of the three methods above result in the death of the embryo, we must pick the procedure that also has the highest chance of death or long-term complication (i.e. sterility) for the woman.
I hope that’s not the reasoning at work here.
Very valid point. I concede that my definition needs more work. But if we accept the “advancing technology” argument, we may reach a point in which even an embryo may be viable outside the womb. Surely that change will not result in a person existing where none did 100 years ago for a similar embryo.
Certainly not. But I don’t agree that animals have any rights under the law, and I contend that laws against cruelty to animals ARE for the benefit of humans.
Of course it’s arbitrary. IT’S PRECISELY AS ARBITRARY AS ANY OTHER LINE WE MAY DRAW. That’s my point. I don’t contend my definition is necessary, compelled, and obvious. Maureen claimed that status for hers.
Of course that’s not the reasoning.
For an action to be moral, it cannot be in and of itself evil, and it cannot be done for an evil end.
Salpingostomy or methotrexate treatment amounts to a direct attack on the unborn child. Full or partial salpingectomy is simply a removal of what will cause the death of the mother. The death of the unborn child is an unintended double effect.
Among other things, HeLa cells contain genetic material from an integrated viral genome (human papillomavirus 18), which would presumably not be found in “Helen”'s germline.
Of course, they also have a different chromosome count from normal human somatic and germ cells, too, so you could probably argue that they aren’t human at all, but a completely new species.
Not in my case; i’m pro-choice, but I do not believe personhood is the defining point at which rights are given. For example, if it could be proved that a foetus had personhood, a soul, whatever, I would be accepting of abortion in some cases. Just as I am fine with the murder of anyone, again, in the right circumstances. I do not believe a foetus has personhood, but that has no bearing on my pro-choice stance.
My reason for not pointing out logical flaws earlier in the argument is that i’m in a different time zone, and so not always around during the most rapid posting.
Perhaps when attempting to point out the biases of your opponents, it might be a good idea not to use such a broad brush, and by doing so open yourself to criticisms of flawed debate.
That’s an interesting perspective. Thank you for your explanation.
I’ll have to think on this.
A distinction without a difference, given the set of circumstances under discussion.
But in this case it is precisely the unborn child, if you will, that will cause the death of the mother. Why should she have to give up her fertility because of what a bunch of celibate men across the ocean think?
Sorry, Bricker, but you will never ever have to face this. I and probably many women here very well could, and we don’t appreciate YOU deciding our fate.
I do wonder: if the soul supposedly enters the fertilized egg at the moment of conception, then do identical twins share one soul between them or does the soul split into two at the same time as the embryo? Do souls bud, like yeast or plants?
A fetus’ welfare would be changed if you gave it rights too. Self-awarenes does not define any abortion law I can recall. State’s interest and privacy are the only litmus tests I know of. As you intimated, rights are given by people… for whatever reason they wish it. We don’t give rights to the unborn. There are many points in fetal developement that “justifies” it being given rights.
We do not use any of those reasons but viability, and that is a state’s interest issue and not guaranteed.
*I have heard some on this very board try to justify #16 as the appropriate time to assign personhood/grant rights.
Why the passive aggressive stance? Why not name posters? This is a helluva broad brush and offends me. Am I to think that my posts are “garbage”? You seem to respond fairly quickly to them.
I said I’ll keep out of this issue now and I will, but this addresses another matter. I am now more firmly of the opinion that you are just involved here to score some sort of debate points or demonstrate your moral superiority. I do not see how your position re the Salvodoran Gment’s legislation is any more “moral” than our outrage at it–in fact, it is less so. To knowingly remove options from a responsible adult in matters of reproduction is NOT moral-regadless of the thought process or doctrine from which it springs. I don’t understand the rationale for it. All this talk of the baby’s rights, as if they trump the mother’s right to have more children later in life-- it’s hogwash. Sorry if that’s “garbage” but it’s honest. Show me how putting the mother’s very life at risk and endangering her future fertility is somehow a greater good. Prove that to me, please.
You don’t agree with the pro-choice position? Fine–to each his own. You are incorrect that the RCC or any pro-life position is morally or logically superior to the pro-choice one. Morals are relative, and depend upon the construct/culture that they occur in. I am no philosopher and I am no debater, but this premise seems obvious to me. The Golden Rule is only esteemed if you are taught to rever it and see benefits (either material or social or spiritual) from it, for example.
Sorry for the hijack.
We need to nip the “self awareness” definition in the bud-- it’s a terrible definition and would lead to all kinds of problems. Adult chimpanzees and dolphins are self aware. A human baby is not self aware at birth. By your definition an adult dolphin is a “person” but a 3 month old baby is not.
Well, after some relatively extensive googling, I’ve found very little in the way of commentary on the role of the Catholic church in the recent changes to El Salvador’s abortion laws. However, I did find a couple of interesting bits on the same issue, that of the legality of “therapeutic abortion,” in Nicaragua.
In Nicaragua, at least, the bishops are opposed to abortion being legal in cases where the life or health of a woman are in danger, apparently because they think people will use that as an excuse to have abortions even in the absence of such dangers. I submit that this attitude is deplorably misogynistic, and morally abhorrent.
In a different case in Nicaragua, that of a 9-year old rape victim who received an abortion amidst great controversy, Archbishop Miguel Obando y Bravo declared those involved in the abortion had “excommunicated themselves.” (Link) While I understand that from the point of view of RCC dogma, abortion in the case of rape is not countenanced, I submit that opposing an abortion for a 9-year old girl is also repugnant. I would be very surprised if the girl’s health wasn’t in significant jeopardy from a pregnancy at such a young age.
This, along with the actions of Archbishop Lacalle, as described in the NYT article, are sufficient evidence to convince me that the RCC hierarchy in Latin America (or at least, the Opus Dei elements within it - but I don’t know how many liberation theology types are even left by now) are misogynist fuckwads, at least in relation to this issue.
Furthermore, in my search I came across a lovely organization called Human Life International, a Catholic pro-life organization, which professes to be a mainstream Catholic group:
The president of HLI, one Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, speaks about his trip to El Salvador in 2003:
Nowhere does he utter a whisper of concern about the health of women whose doomed pregnancies threaten their life. His comments on the legal status of abortion in El Salvador can only be described as glowing. HLI doesn’t seem concerned in the least about abortions which may be permissible under the doctrine of double effect; in fact, the only mention of double effect on the entire HLI domain (at least so far as google can see) is an explanation for why the doctrine of double effect does not permit the use of condoms to prevent transmission of AIDS.
Now, perhaps HLI’s self-description is delusionally grandiose, and it is not in fact a mainstream Catholic pro-life organization. In truth, I would be quite happy if that were so. However, it appears to be exactly what it says it is, and the attitude I discovered on its website does not strike me as one that will be satisfied with a legal situation short of that found in El Salvador. Hence, I submit that the law in El Salvador actually is the logical end-point of extant pro-life views in the US.
I would be quite happy to be proven wrong.
Oh, but sneering condescension and passive aggression gives one such a warm smug feeling.
Bricker, my arguments aren’t arbitrary, there is direct correlation between loss of higher brain function and sense of self (in Alzheimers patients; the article is very recent), that it is possible that fetuses may feel pain:
Now, if we accept that these researchers are not lying, and agree with my earlier post that higher brain functions begin between 20 & 28 weeks, then do you accept that “awareness of pain” indicates an awareness of self?
Everything I’ve studied about Obando y Bravo shows him to be a major ass. IIRC, didn’t he support the contras?