If I’m understanding your point, I think you misunderstand what I meant. The fact that many embryoes are destroyed through the IVF process is not meant as a cavalier dismissal. It is simply the reality of the situation. If you attempt to implant all five, typically most if not all will fail. Period. That’s why many people, myself included, are deeply troubled by procedures like IVF.
Hi all.
First off, apologies for not setting out my hypothetical in more concrete terms. Still, questions of verisimilitude aside, I think everyone got the point.
The answers I’ve received from Stratocaster and Stagger Lee (that, given the choice within the slightly bizarre confines of my hypothetical, they’d choose to save the 5 embryo’s rather than the 3 year old child) are, I must confess, slightly disturbing to me as a pro-choicer because they ignore the suffering of the abandoned child.
Newly fertilised embryo’s are, to me, nothing more than clusters of coagulated cells. The child, by contrast, is a feeling, thinking human being with an immense capacity for suffering.
In my eyes, the child’s capacity for congnition elevates him far above one, five, or even a thousand embryo’s. The way I look at it, a body without the ability to cogitate is just a lump of tissue, existentially equivalent to a corpse.
I have a follow up question for Stratocaster and Stagger Lee (if I could beg your indulgence just a little longer). When making your decision earlier, to what extent did the suffering of the child factor into your decision? In other words, what emphasis do you place on sentience when evaluating the worth of a living organism?
How about the numerous times when he said he wouldn’t answer the hypothetical because it was designed to ‘entrap’ him? If one answers a question, and then claims that any answers given are invalid because the question only opens one up to being mocked… well… sure sounds like someone wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Whatever. Seems to me the question was answered, and then there was a lot of bluster over whether or not it’s a reasonable question–the answer notwithstanding. Call me radical, but when I hear someone answer a question, I crazily assume the question’s answered. But if you want to continue railing against his not answering the question he already answered, feel free.
Well, it’s your hypothetical. The choice is to let 5 human beings be destroyed or another human being suffer. I don’t like it either.
Well, them’s your axioms. Not mine, however.
A lot, I suppose. In a real life situation, without the assurances of this hypothetical, I’d likely save the little girl. Wouldn’t be sure afterward if I made the right choice, but that’s probably what I’d do. Outside the heat of the moment, considering unambiguous hypotheticals, it’s much easier to make logical choices.
That’s an interesting way of putting it. Surely you mean “let 5 human beings be destroyed or another human being be destroyed”? Wouldn’t want to think you were selecting your words to make your position sound better, would we? 
If you thought that, you’d have to ignore the context of the specific question posed–i.e., to what extent is the suffering of the sentient child a factor? And we wouldn’t want to think you’d pull something out of context to make someone’s position seem to dodge a key fact, would we?
[nitpick]
It is not a pro-life position. It is an anti-choice position.
[/nitpick]
You’re right. We’re taking **all ** factors into account, here, so it should have been “let 5 human beings be destroyed or another human being suffer and be destroyed”. Or with the addition of another suffering with the 5, if you believe they would suffer (not sure what your position is on that).
Ah, come on, now. Yes, it’s an anti-choice position ( I don’t think that can be denied by anyone). But from their perspective, it is most certainly a pro-life position. And from their perspective, ours is a murder-encouraging position. That’s rather why we use these more acceptable terms of pro-life and pro-choice. “Baby-murderers” and “Mysogynistic woman-haters” aren’t exactly conducive to debate - or even conversation.
This is such tiresome horseshit. Shall we all start calling you “pro-death”? “Baby killers”? Have the courtesy to call people what they prefer to be called. I do. You want to be called pro-choice? Fine. But it is no less a politically motivated designation.
First off, I originally placed no thought whatsoever to the suffering of either the embryoes or the child, since the way the question was framed was one of which life/lives would you save. Therefore I assumed that it was not a case of suffering but of saving life. Secondly in rescue type situations “suffering” does not come into as much as saving life. As I pointed out before the while idea of triage is to maintain as much life as possible, not to prevent as much suffering as possible. So from that point of view given 5 mortally wounded people over 1 healthy person, I would take the healthy person and leave the other 5 to die, because I have the best chance of maintaining life with the one.
From a deeper perspective everyone dies. Rescuing the child will not save her from the suffering of death, it only delays it. In fact rescuing the girl may set her up for a more painful death later in life, therefore increasing her suffering. In general I don’t think “who is going to suffer most” is a good way of deciding what to do in emergency situations.
In terms of deciding personhood I place no importance whatsoever on “sentience” or whatever intellectual ability you care to name. The reasons for this are:
-
There is no clearly defined standard for what level of intellectual ability makes someone a person. Why just stop at the intellect of a newborn? Why not have the ability to solve differential equations as the mark of humanity.
-
At many of the early stages of human development the intellectual ability of a human is not unique. So for instance many animals such as cows, pigs, dogs and cats would function at either the same or a higher level intellectually as a newborn baby. Why give one personhood, yet deny the personhood of others that have the same level of functioning?
-
Intellectual ability is not constant throughout the life of a person. If you require some level of intellectual activity then you have to deal with the fact that people are going to dip in and out of being a person. So for instance what happensi if someone drinks themselves unconscious? What happens to their humanity when they are unconscious? Do they cease to be human since they no longer have that mental ability, and if so do they loose all their rights. Can I steal stuff from a passed-out drunk because in not being a person he has lost his right to own property, ect?
-
You cannot use an argument centering around the “potential” of a person for high level thought. Once an embryoe is fertillized the “potential” for high level thought is there already encoded in their genetic material. There is no essential difference between the development of a foetus and the passed-out drunk processing the alcohol in their body.
-
Many of the greatest crimes against humanity have been perpetrated using the excuse of the intellectual non-humanity of different groups. For instance slavery in many western countries was carried out under the assumption that black people were not fully human because they lacked the intelligence to form ordered (ie: white) type civilizations, and were therefore little more than animalistic savages. And this arguement is not just a historical curiosity, as it is still being used in areas such as how we treat the intellectually disabled. I find any attempt to remove personhood from someone based on their intellectual inability to be wrong.
I define personhood ontologically. Everything thing that is alive (embryoes are alive, corpses are not) and human is a person. Intellectual ability does not come into it.
Now, a question for you George. Your own argument could be interpreted as saying that “normal” people are worth more than the intellectually disabled because by virtue of their increased mental capacity they can suffer more. What if you replaced the 5 embryoes with 5 intellectually disabled children. What level of disability would make you go for the one “normal” child instead of the 5 with disabilities.
And BTW, even though I thought it was already clear, Stratocaster is right. IF the embryoes had a magical survivability such that they were guaranteed life, I would choose the embryoes, as that maintains the most life. Of course given the magical level of survivability that they have attained one wonders why they need saving in the first place.
How are you any less a slave once you have the kid?
You’re forced by the state and society to take care of them according to a fairly high standard.
I’m surprised that out of 12 pages, no one has brought up the issue of forcing more people to be born onto our already over-populated planet.
Think about it: If every pregnancy that ever occured in the history of time were carried to term (barring complications), grew to adulthood, and reproduced in turn, we’d be stacked on top of each other trying to make room for everyone. That may sound extreme, but in my head it’s not.
[cruel sounding analogy ahead]We already have methods in place for controlling the population of many species, i.e. deer hunting season. Abortion, really, is just a synthetic method of population control. Synthetic as opposed to natural miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, and such.[/csa]
ducks
Ooooh. Powerful rebuttal.
Which is my point about not having the courage of one’s convictions and wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
I can give you a scorecard if you require.
Actually, I’ll call you obfuscatory. Because if someone answers a question, and then immediately attempts to gainsay the very ability to have that question asked, then they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth.
I’m belaboring, I’m huffing and puffing, I’m railing, blah blah blah… and yet, back in reality, all I’m doing is pointing out a contradiction and an act of evasion. Interesting that you feel the need to characterize a reasoned discussion in pejoritive and emotional terms. Interesting, that.
Just for the hard of understanding:
Yes, pretty little evasion. Oh so cute.
Just for the hard up for conviction, you see.
100% chance of survival or 100% chance of being born? As long as they stay frozen they survive.
Yeah, uh that was the point, 1000 embryos=1000 lives, 1000 lives or 1 life.
But why is it “an impossible survivability” (are you still assuming a petri dish, instead of the dewar?). In my hypo’ if you choose the dewar 100% of the 1,000 embryos survive.
Funny, I answered the question (I’d save the child), I don’t feel entrapped and nobody’s calling me a hypocrite or mocking me (yet). If I believed that embryo=baby I’d save the dewar instead.
See how easy it is?
Ya don’t mean my “ratpigdogboy” hypo’ do you? You think that was more realistic?
The only thing framing that piece o’ crap is a toilet seat.
[Jules-Pulp Fiction] Inherent Impossibilities, Examples? [/Jules]
OK, I’ll bite, you can have triage.
Now, tell me exactly how triage changes anything in my hypo’?
No kidding.
5 people with advanced bubonic plague,
5 mortally wounded people,
1000 mortally wounded people,
Let’s make it 5 rotting corpses or 1 healthy person, triage that!
I’m gonna re-jig the hypo for me too,
CHOOSE, an all expenses paid trip to a tropical island of naked bi-sexual nymphomaniac chicks
OR
be eaaten alive by giant squid with a raygun?
ohh shit an extra ‘a’ :eek:
and I best be winnin’ my tropical island paradise vacation,
and not the damn pony! 
Thanks, but I must decline the award.
Because,
I’m surprised that out of 12 pages, no one has really addressed the OP’s actual issue,
“How can someone justify FORCING a rape or incest victim to carry a child to term?”
but there’s been a whole lot about what the OP didn’t want to address
“Now, I’m not going to bring up the abortion debate. Tempers flare on both sides.”
I’m also surprised that out of 12 pages, (almost ) no one has addressed the issue of South Dakota!
I win, if I can somehow manage to un-hijack the thread.
And my fear is great.
Yup, I’z done gone an’ wooshed myself. :smack:
CMC fnord
Oh yeah, almost forgot,
Yeah, they got it all right.
Why are they there, what’s gonna happen to them, will they live?
But I can carry them both! It’s never 100% in real life. This is absurd and silly!
But if you give me a magical petri dish, and embryos with magical survivability, soo magical that they don’t really need to be saved anyway.
Tell me about the rabbits again, George, tell me about the rabbits! I don’t need no fancy foods like beans with ketchup!
The rabbits we’re gonna get and I, I get to tend 'em.
I wish we had some ketchup.
George: Whatever we ain’t got, that’s what you want!
Yeah.
Instead of apologizing, maybe you could just find a more concrete hypo’ to use, I don’t know were you’d look for one though. :rolleyes:
I would ask you if you think self defense is okay as well as war? A woman has a right to self defense and in some circumstances that is what an abortion is to her. Because I was never in that position doesn’t mean I should deprive her of defending herself, her right to life is effected by her decision.
War, even what some call a just war, is killing a lot of people, innocent people, pregnant women, small children, and babies. We know before we go to war that many innocent people will die, even though we may try our best to avoid it, so knowing ahead of time that innocents will die(as I understand your thinking)War is murder too?
What have you done personally to see that the already born people of this country and the millions starving to death in other countries are kept alive, Do you go with out anything and just live on the bare necessities? If not you are just pro birth. How can you say you are pro-life and let millions starve? The monies spent by the so called pro life people could feed quite a few of the already born, but they are too interested in pushing their beliefs on others,and spend a lot of their money traveling, etc. that could be used for the purpose of saving lives of already born. How many children are you adopting; or taking care of so the poorer families can work, are you willing to pay higher taxes,or do you vote for the candidate that will lower yours? It is the poor that go without the services that tax cuts get rid of.
Monavis
You are just not getting it, are you? A frozen embryoe is not a “life” in the normal sense. It is effectively frozen in a state of development to be (hopefully) re-animated at a later date. It isn’t quite what I would call “dead”, but it is not really “alive” either, as it is not growing or changing. Let me ask you, if I gave you a choice of one thawed and conscious person, and 1000 adults frozen that, while technically could be re-animated, for whatever reason either were never going to be, which would you choose? I’m guessing that you would pick the one thawed person, not the 1000 that are going to remain perpetually frozen.
It is the same situation with a lot of frozen embryoes. Some are thawed and used. Most are simply disposed of. And even from those that are used many are destined to fully live only a few hours or days as they may fail to implant in the womb, or something may happen to them during pregnancy. There is no guarantee that saving 1000 embryoes saves anywhere near 1000 lives in any significant way.
And this is the center of my objection. The way we think about the value embryoes is coloured by the fact that many don’t live very long and many (wrongly IMHO) are routinely destroyed or dommed to being perpetually frozen. You can’t just change this reality and then expect some instinctive comparison to have much validity. Asking people how they would react in a situation that is never going to happen because it is impossible doesn’t reveal very much.