Sorry, hit reply too soon.
Is this new? It seems to me that it is simply a restatement of the tired old pro-life side of the debate. I was asking the OP (and one of the follow up posters) to clarify what it is about this book that is so new and compelling from the Party of Death book.
Are you able to do so, or are you going to continue to throw the old stuff about in (non) response to my specific questions?
The famous speech by Shylock argued for the humanity of Jews. Let’s use that
Does an embryo have hands? No. Eyes? No. Affections, passions? No. Warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer? No. If you tickle it, it does not laugh. And it does not revenge.
And, btw, I wish people wouldn’t quote from 1984 as if it were a guide to proper politic discourse. That is about as clever as an advertiser using Won’t Get Fooled Again as a jingle.
You don’t want people to reference 1984 but are cool with Shakespeare’s quoting of a antagonist to make your point. Check.
1984phorisms are a good deal more cliche than Shakespeare these days.
. . . This thread isn’t about autoerotic asphyxiation at all, is it?
Never mind.
I thought I was agreeing with you that it wasn’t new.
Oh - sorry, I missed that.
I’m fine with people referencing 1984. People who use one of the words Orwell invented as an instance of the abuse of language by the haters of freedom in the process of abusing language to limit freedom is what gets me. As for Shakespeare, a cite was requested on what makes a person. Whatever his treatment of Shylock in the play, that quote was not anti-Semitic.
I’m profoundly comfortable with calling blastocysts unpersons. I think it’s absurd that a 100 celled organism be given rights that we don’t accord non-human primates.
I think once we’ve given rights to primates, bears, dogs, cats, rats, mosquitos, head lice…then we can begin to worry about blastocysts.
Later in development reasonable people can argue. But stem cell research IMHO can only concern a theocrat.
I am not in disagreement with you w/r/t stem cell research. But somewhere in between the embryo stage and birth there is a grey area where I am uncomfortable blithely designating the creatures as non human. Ironically, it wouldn’t be as bad if I were a hardcore Christian, since the creatures would find their reward in Heaven, but since it’s fairly likely we only have one shot at this thing we call “life”, it’s better to not take a chance that we are killing a conscious human, all other things being equal.
Except of course all other things are rarely equal. About the only cut-and-dried case I can bring up would be if abortion and premature caesarian are about equal in safety, or at least to the point that the number of lives saved would be equal given the percentages. Of course, people can always find compliant doctors to claim that abortion is a medically-necessary alternative.
(Now, someone will bring up the old argument that even if premature birth were as safe as abortion, that the mother and father would then be forced to support the child. For a response to that just look at my previous posting record w/r/t my thoughts on forced child support for “stealth children.”)
I saw the interview on the Daily Show. One of the points Jon was making was the very title of the book implies something negative about those he disagrees with. Fans the fires of contention rather than makes a rational arguement.
The other point Jon made brilliantly is linking his pro life arguments to the conservative support for the war.
If it is acceptable for there to be so many civilians casualties in the war against terror then why isn’t stem cell research in the war against disease acceptable?
I have mixed feelings about abortion but I can’t see how anyone who supports this war can turn around and honestly say “Oh I’m pro life” If you are against abortion because of some sincere reverence for life or even the potential of life, then it seems you would be twice as outraged by this dishonest war as you are about abortion.
2nd; I have people standing with gruesome signs across the street at the clinic fairly often. If people are going to call themselves pro lifers then they’d better be doing something to support the unwanted children that come into this world on a regular basis. If you insist on removing a woman’s right to legally choose abortion then you assume some moral responsibility to care for unwed mothers or unwanted children.
I don’t think this was such a brilliant observation. It’s being discussed in another thread, but I will just mention here that it is much too simplistic to state that these two situations are at all analagous. One might turn it around and say, how can you be against the war, but for embryonic stem cell research? If you care so much about the innocent and helpless dying, how can you deliberately destroy the most innocent and helpless among us?
It is a complete myth that pro-life people are only about protesting in front of abortion clinics, and do not help babies once they are brought into the world. Many, many pro-life people are involved in organizations that help mothers who want to have their babies and keep them or give them up for adoption. These organizations provide food, clothing, sometimes a place to live & other needs for mothers & babies. Additionally, they do job training and give information about the appropriate social programs, so the mother has ongoing support. If the mother desires adoption, they help with counseling as well as help facilitate the adoption in a manner that is most comfortable for the mother (finding adoptive parents, deciding on open vs. closed adoptions, etc.) If liberals really cared about “choice,” they would also get involved in these kinds of organizations, so maybe women wouldn’t feel trapped into having an abortion they might not even want.
I think it’s incorrect to even look at stem cells as potential life or “in need” of help. I agree that Stewart’s comparison sounded better than it actually was.
:rolleyes: In that case I trust you have a cite that they aren’t involved in those programs?
No more than cosmosdan has a cite that conservatives aren’t involved in those programs.
Sorry…meant to address this point, as well…I wouldn’t necessarily argue with your statement about stem cells…I was just trying to point out that nothing is QUITE as cut and dried as Stewart made it out to be (which I see you acknowledge as well).
Perhaps, but the obvious difference is that there is some question as to the person hood of embryos and there is absolutely no question about it in the civilians being killed in Iraq. Those who don’t see embryos as little people aren’t contradicting themselves. The point being made was the sanctity of life argument used to argue against stem cell research doesn’t seem to apply to the thousands of people being killed in Iraq. I realize it isn’t a flawless ananlogy, but it’s a pretty good one.
It was not my intention to imply or support that myth. I know there are good people who are actually doing positive things for single mothers to be and kids. I have great respect for those actions.
Are you implying that no liberals participate?
My point was only that I feel taking action to remove the abortion choice for women holds some moral obligation to help.
I don’t need a cite for that since I never said it. I’d appreciate you not misrepresenting my posts and an apology for this false statement from you.
I care about *people * dying. Blastocysts aren’t people. Regardless, it isn’t necessarily hypocritical to support both the Iraq war and stem cell research, or neither, or any combination thereof.
More astute was Jon’s question (paraphrased from memory) “Do you condone imposing what many people consider the equivalent of rape in order to prevent what many people consider the equivalent of murder?”
It’s so astute that it went over my head. Care to explain?
To clarify, Jon was speaking of abortion rights, not stem cell research when he made that remark.