Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2013, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2013 07:13 AM by AyameTan.)
Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
Since the Secular Pro-life movement is still in its infancy (and looking to stay that way for a long time), I thought this might be the most appropriate place for this topic.

Every pro-lifer I have posed this dilemma to (and I will be the first to admit that I did not concoct it myself) have either dodged the issue (by picking a third option) or dismissing it altogether. Here is the dilemma:

Quote:If a hospital was burning down, and you could save either a newborn baby or a petri dish with 20 embryos (BUT NOT BOTH), which would you save?

I'd get the infant to safety.

Here is an example of the former evasion:

http://pjsaunders.blogspot.jp/2013/05/ti...iting.html

Peter Saunders Wrote:I'd grab the petri dish in my left hand and the newborn baby in my right and make for the door :-)

And the latter:

http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=14173

Wesley J Smith Wrote:Those dumb scenarios are no basis for the making of public policy. Hey, there are four men on the moon, one falls into a permanent coma. The rocket breaks down and the escape pod can only fit three. Which do you choose? Please.

Has anyone else had a similar experience?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 07:29 AM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2013 11:41 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
There is no hospital in which the nursery is anywhere near a place, (actually there is no hospital that keeps frozen embryos) where there would be a frozen embryo.

There is no Petri dish that has multiple fertilized frozen embryos.

Of course you would save the baby. A frozen embryo is a potential human, with no neural tube, ie a clump of cells which have the potential to become, in optimal circumstances, a human. It is not a actualized human, any more than a pre-fertilized oocyte, with a spermatocyte in the process of breaking through the cell membrane, is a "human person". A baby is an actual human person. "Personhood" is a legal notion, conferred on an actual biologically actualized human organism. An embryo does not meet that criteria. Most actual fertilized embryos are spontaneously aborted, therefore the loss of a fertilized embryo, (even for a religious fundi), is the way nature takes care of the many problems that arise is early embryology. (There is no evidence for "souls", and in a secular society the use of that ancient notion is completely inappropriate in constructing laws concerning human offspring in 2013). This is not a theocracy.

There are multiple milestones in the early development of a primate.
1. Even though a sperm cell may reach the oocyte first, it does not mean that sperm cell will be successful as DNA contributor. There is a process in which sperm cells apparently "cooperate" and all but one are not the ones who's DNA is contributed to the zygote. The determining factor, of which one will be the DNA contributor, is not understood yet.
2. The zygote must travel down the Fallopian tube, and embed in the uterine wall. If that does not happen, the potential human does not pass that one, (one of many) of the necessary developmental milestones.
3. There are literally millions, if not billions of "developmental milestones". If any one of these is interrupted, or goes wrong, the offspring does not embed, and the pregnancy is not successful.
4. After embedding, there are many more milestones that must be completed, in order for a successful pregnancy to come to a successful outcome.
5. Interruption of any of the steps will result in an unsuccessful outcome, whether intentional or unintentional, in the multiple sided long complex process which results, eventually in a human. A potential human cannot be granted legal "person-hood". It's a "reductio ad absurdam" argument.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-06-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
IMO, anyone who would even consider leaving an infant in a fire deserves to die a slow, painful death in the fire. I don't see a dilemma in this scenario.


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bows and Arrows's post
14-06-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
Check this shit out
http://www.deviantart.com/art/Scumbag-of...-377249313

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
(14-06-2013 07:29 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no hospital in which the nursery is anywhere near a place, (actually there is no hospital that keeps frozen embryos) where there would be a frozen embryo.

There is no Petri dish that has multiple fertilized frozen embryos.

Of course you would save the baby. A frozen embryo is a potential human, with no neural tube, ie a clump of cells which have the potential to become, in optimal circumstances, a human. It is not a actualized human, any more than a pre-fertilized oocyte, with a spermatocyte in the process of breaking through the cell membrane, is a "human person". A baby is an actual human person. "Personhood" is a legal notion, conferred on an actual biologically actualized human organism. An embryo does not meet that criteria. Most actual fertilized embryos are spontaneously aborted, therefore the loss of a fertilized embryo, (even for a religious fundi), is the way nature takes care of the many problems that arise is early embryology. (There is no evidence for "souls", and in a secular society the use of that ancient notion is completely inappropriate in constructing laws concerning human offspring in 2013). This is not a theocracy.

There are multiple milestones in the early development of a primate.
1. Even though a sperm cell may reach the oocyte first, it does not mean that sperm cell will be successful as DNA contributor. There is a process in which sperm cells apparently "cooperate" and all but one are not the ones who's DNA is contributed to the zygote. The determining factor, of which one will be the DNA contributor, is not understood yet.
2. The zygote must travel down the Fallopian tube, and embed in the uterine wall. If that does not happen, the potential human does not pass that one, (one of many) of the necessary developmental milestones.
3. There are literally millions, if not billions of "developmental milestones". If any one of these is interrupted, or goes wrong, the offspring does not embed, and the pregnancy is not successful.
4. After embedding, there are many more milestones that must be completed, in order for a successful pregnancy to come to a successful outcome.
5. Interruption of any of the steps will result in an unsuccessful outcome, whether intentional or unintentional, in the multiple sided long complex process which results, eventually in a human. A potential human cannot be granted legal "person-hood". It's a "redictio ad absurdam" argument.

I'd say something, but, no, that pretty much covers it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
14-06-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
(14-06-2013 07:08 AM)AyameTan Wrote:  Since the Secular Pro-life movement is still in its infancy (and looking to stay that way for a long time), I thought this might be the most appropriate place for this topic.

Every pro-lifer I have posed this dilemma to (and I will be the first to admit that I did not concoct it myself) have either dodged the issue (by picking a third option) or dismissing it altogether. Here is the dilemma:

Quote:If a hospital was burning down, and you could save either a newborn baby or a petri dish with 20 embryos (BUT NOT BOTH), which would you save?

I'd get the infant to safety.

Here is an example of the former evasion:

http://pjsaunders.blogspot.jp/2013/05/ti...iting.html

Peter Saunders Wrote:I'd grab the petri dish in my left hand and the newborn baby in my right and make for the door :-)

And the latter:

http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=14173

Wesley J Smith Wrote:Those dumb scenarios are no basis for the making of public policy. Hey, there are four men on the moon, one falls into a permanent coma. The rocket breaks down and the escape pod can only fit three. Which do you choose? Please.

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

The Problem with "Secular Pro-life" is it falls apart because reason and facts are on the pro-choice side. Pro-life is all about emotion and appearing to do "God's Work" while in fact cause far more harm in the long run. The Pro-life (who are not in any way Pro Life just anti-women having sex btw) movement is not about saving lives, that may be what some of their foot soldiers think but in the same way the NRA is not about Gun Safety the Pro-Life movement is about controlling people and forcing dogma on them.

Fact: The best way to prevent Abortions is through Birth-control and family planning. This is not an opinion this is a fact that is shown in every study ever done and shows up in census data (states that follow this plan vs the Pro-life abstinence only idiocy have a much lower rate of abortions and unwanted pregnancies) The Pro-choice side is actually more effective at reducing the number of Abortions since it is the only side that embraces the full spectrum of family planning.

Fact: Abortions save lives. Most Abortions are not performed by a Doctor at a clinic or some guy down a back alley, they happen spontaneously. Evolution has added this function because pregnancy is the single most dangerous thing Women have to do. Without proper Prenatal care a child is 5 times more likely to die. In states where Abortion is de facto banned or at least made almost impossible (single clinic for the state, odious laws to run such a clinic) Prenatal care is greatly reduced and if the current batch of Pro-life state lawmakers have their way there will be no exceptions for rape/incest or life of the mother.

Fact: The Pro-Life movement is about control not life. If the Anti-choice crowd were to ever honestly be about life instead of control they would drop things like the Personhood Amendment that actually outlaw several forms of Birth control and IVF. Since all they claim to care about is stopping the death of Fetuses (feti?) these bills should be anathema since it would in fact prevent pregnancies on one hand and cause more abortions (since women would now have less birth control options) at the same time. However since they are championing these bills it shows that Control, not saving lives or preventing Abortions is in fact their goal.

Once you remove Gawd and emotions from this debate it is so incredibly one sided as to be laughable that we are still having it in 2013. If any Anti-Choicer reading this cares to refute these points please I await your response.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Revenant77x's post
14-06-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
@ revenant and ayametan

Is the secular pro life movement only in regards to abortion or do the include other things such as birth control.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
(14-06-2013 10:43 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  ... Since all they claim to care about is stopping the death of Fetuses (feti?) these bills should be anathema ...

Fetus is, indeed the Latin root of the English word; whether to use the Latin -i plural or the English formation -(e)s depends on how hypercorrective you want to be.

But of course, fetus is that sentence is not in the nominative case (feti) but the genitive; second-declension Latin plural gentive takes the ending -orum. So, fetorum.

Of course, that's moot anyway, since fetus in Latin is in fact an adjective.

...

Carry on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-06-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
(14-06-2013 11:25 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  @ revenant and ayametan

Is the secular pro life movement only in regards to abortion or do the include other things such as birth control.

It tends to all fall under that banner. Abstinence only sex-ed, being against most forms of birth control, being vehemently against Planned Parenthood (even though less than 10% of what they do involves abortions) The Personhood Amendment I cited above. All that falls under the Anti-Choice banner.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
14-06-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: Pro-lifers and Moral Dilemmas
Quote:osted by Revenant77x - Today 11:32 AM
(Today 11:25 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:
@ revenant and ayametan

Is the secular pro life movement only in regards to abortion or do the include other things such as birth control.

It tends to all fall under that banner. Abstinence only sex-ed, being against most forms of birth control, being vehemently against Planned Parenthood (even though less than 10% of what they do involves abortions) The Personhood Amendment I cited above. All that falls under the Anti-Choice banner.

But theoretically someone could consider a fetus to be a person and that it is murder to kill one but that birth control is no problem because that is not a genetic human

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: