|
Arguments like these make the "Life begins at conception" have some hefty asterisks involved. Will it naturally come to term un-interfered with, or must there be a subsequent involvement of surgical insertion and other means?
I think the contracts signed with IVF should involve as much legal language and care as do prenuptial agreements and business contracts. It should be explicit in the payment to the IVF center what rights the woman and man have to the eggs. Implant by mutual agreement only, fully the property of the woman, or terminate by either one. With the law in US what it is, the man is liable for child support in most cases if it is his child. With the threat of financial burden and criminality for nonpayment, it's in his best interest to choose only clinics that make it explicit in the contract.
Fertilized eggs outside the womb vs fertilized eggs on their way to implantation in the uterus will emerge as the principal difference in the moral attitude of the pro-life crowd. Considering the costs involved, fertilizing multiple eggs for implantation is justified. Comparing the first IVF birth in the 1970s to the multitude of births by normal means prior to that represents a significant difference.
|
On July 06 2013 06:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:09 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:22 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:05 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:17 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote:
No I'm not saying we should change the law to make starving your children legal. I'm arguing that we should make laws such that embryos would not have rights. If this means that they should not qualify as 'children' under the legal definition then so be it. The law is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It is what we want it to be, what it currently is does not matter.
Also, ok, so it seems we're on the same page, it just sounded the other way around from the way you phrased it.
A human is a "living human organism", is not a valid definition because it's cyclical. It's like saying a cat is a living cat. It doesn't mean anything. You can't use the word human to define itself.
Oocyte -> embryo -> human. How is oocyte not a stage of development, it clearly is a predecursor of the embryonic stage. If I don't let the oocyte get fertilized, it degenerates. If I don't let the blastocyst implant into the endometrium, it degerates. You seem to be very hung up on DNA and that somehow once all the DNA is there it's suddenly human but actually the proteins and various epigenetic modifications (which are not only on the DNA itself) are just as vital. Just having 'human DNA' will not result in a human.
Anyway, as I said, we need a definition of 'human', or this isn't going anywhere. Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo. And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person. The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism. human: an organism that has human DNA. Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too. Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human? Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using? So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now. What is your definition of organism? An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism Well, you can take a single human cell, and put in a culture and it'll survive, reproduce, etc. so by that definition it's obviously an organism. No, it's not an organism. An organism has to have all of those qualities, not just one or two. Lest you want to call some random human cell a human, I suggest you reconsider that definition. You should give that recommendation to biologists everywhere. Also, this definition seems acceptable for organism to me, so I suppose you could call it this, though I don't see why it needs to be in one of those six categories.
I honestly don't think you can get a good definition of 'human'. In fact, I don't think there is a satisfactory one at all. So you don't have a definition of human... you don't understand the definition of organism... but you're positive that an embryo doesn't qualify... I meant it has all of the qualities. It will react to stimuli, e.g. hormones; it will reproduce; grow is the same as reproduce for small organisms; maintain homeostasis, all cells, and even organelles within them, do this, otherwise life would be impossible because enzymes wouldn't work. And it has all the characteristics of an animal. Cells are not organisms though... at least, they are not considered as such. Otherwise humans would not be single organisms, but rather millions of organisms. Sorry but most biologists would agree with me that a single human cell is an organism, at least those I know. Certainly wouldn't consider a human cell, or bunch of human cells, a 'human'. So most biologists would agree that a skin cell is an organism, but that a embryo is not human? Really... have proof of that? And I don't have a good definition of a human, because I don't think there is one. I can certainly tell what isn't a suitable definition for 'human', though, because it doesn't fit. You can't qualify an embryo, or anything, for that matter, as a human, so long as you can't define it. So you can't qualify anything as a human (because you've admitted that you can't define it)? Are you a human? The onus of defining 'human' is on you, if you want to put an embryo under its banner, not on me. I don't need a definition, you do. Otherwise it's like saying that there's these things called X, you're not quite sure what qualifies as an X, but you're certain an embryo is an X, despite not knowing what an X is. Not very convincing, is it? I've given a definition of human, I'm just wondering where your objections come into play (like if you have other definitions). Of course, getting anything out of you is like pulling teeth. Obviously I can't speak for the majority of ALL biologists, but of those I do know (mostly medical microbiologists), I'd say probably every last one would agree with me. Well, depends which skin cell, some epidermal skin cells could be considered close to dead, so not those. Okay, and they would all agree with you that an embryo is definitely not a human? What definition of human would they use, btw? I thought they were millions of symbiotic organisms? Show nested quote +A single cell is certainly not a human, though, but is an organism nonetheless. Of course not. But you can't say what human is (or are unwilling to). I ask once again, are you a human? Indeed. But you've not established the alleged facts that you used to support said position. I presume your statement on burden of proof was this. I reject it, but I'll let you believe that if you'd like. Once again, are you a human? Show nested quote +As for my definition of human, I don't have one, I just work on my intuition of what is or isn't human. It generally works well enough for my purposes. You don't know what it is, but you're sure that your intuition is correct? What is your "intuition"?
My point is you can't define 'human' satisfactorily because it is a word that is used to describe things which we collectively feel is a human based on our intuition. Generally this works because in most cases what is being talked about appears human to all parties involved. What appears to be a human to you, might not appear a human to another, e.g. an embryo. There is no definition you can find to bridge this gap, hence why I think there is no satisfactory definition. And you do have the burden of providing a definition if you want to convince anyone else using it. And, just so you don't ask the obvious yet again, I would definitely refer to myself as a human, if it wasn't obvious.
Besides, I think the 'is an embryo a human?' discussion has gone on long enough and doesn't seem to be yielding any fruits. If to you an embryo is a human, then I don't think I can find a way of persuading you otherwise, just because it's an arbitrary distinction. Likewise you won't persuade me, either, so this is pointless. And I don't think it matters whether it's a human either, because even if we assume it is, killing humans is sometimes beneficial, hence we do it. Even if it were a human, that would still not mean there wasn't reason to kill it. Here's an argument which may convince you:
Definition #1 The word benefit is intended in the "to get what you want" sense of the word, not in the, "become happier" sense of the word. Hence, to 'benefit' is meant as 'to fulfill your desires'. And a beneficial event is, thus, one which brings desires to fulfillment.
Definition #2 The word harm is intended in the sense "to have something you desire to not happen, happen". You can work out what harmful is intended to mean, I imagine.
Premise #1 Beneficial things which are not harmful should be done.
Conclusion #1 Thus, abortions, should, when beneficial, and not harmful, be performed (P #1).
Premise #2 The only ones who may be significantly influenced by an abortion are the parents or the embryo(s).
Premise #3 We should only consider whether an abortion is beneficial or harmful to those significantly influenced by it in determining whether it is a "beneficial thing which is not harmful".
Premise #4 A brain is necessary to have desires.
Premise #5 Embryos, especially early embryos, lack a brain.
Conclusion #2 Embryos do not have desires (P #4 #5).
Conclusion #3 Embryos are unable to benefit, or come to harm, as they do not have desires (C #2 & Def. #1 #2).
Premise #4 If the mother wants an abortion, she stands to benefit from it (See Def. #1)
Premise #5 If the father wants an abortion, he stands to benefit from it (See Def. #2)
Conclusion #4 If both the mother and father want an abortion, then it is beneficial to the mother and father and does not harm the embryo (P #4 #5 C #3). Thus, it is beneficial and not harmful and should, hence, be performed (P #1 #2 #3 C #1 #4)
If you're willing to loosen up Def. #2 of harm to "significant suffering (not encompassing 'your genetic material' being used to produce humans)", then you can make a similar case for why in-vitro embryos should be implanted if either of the two parents wishes to, because one would benefit and the other would not come to harm under this definition.
Ultimately though, I like the "I'm not an embryo and will never become one, so feel free to make/kill as many as you want, I don't care" school of thought much better.
|
On July 06 2013 15:54 Catocalipse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 06:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 04:09 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:22 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 03:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 03:05 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:17 Catocalipse wrote:On July 06 2013 02:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Okay. So you want the law to remain as it is then. Because as of now, the embryo is not considered to be a "child" (I understand that "child" is not a legal term, bear with me) and therefore is not considered to hold those human rights. I am simply saying that the law we have now, which prevents the deprivation of food from a minor, should apply to the embryo.
And the definition is fine. Human was shorthand for "human being". Human being is another way of saying: person. Basically, I am saying: "A person is a living human organism." It is undeniably human, it is undeniably an organism. It is therefore, according to my definition, a person.
The oocyte is not a separate organism. That's like saying: all the components of an orange make up an orange, therefore one component of an orange makes up an orange. No. The orange peels, by themselves, are not equal to an orange. The oocyte is not equal to the embryo. The embryo is an organism, the oocyte is a byproduct of an organism.
human: an organism that has human DNA. Component? The embryo is a component of a human then, because obviously you won't get a human from just an embryo -- you need other stuff too. Other stuff, huh? So, you need other stuff added to a human to make it a human? Just wondering, what definition of "human" are you using? So now we're working with "organism that has human DNA". Well, by my definition of 'organism' this is false, so you're going to have to define 'organism' now. What is your definition of organism? An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism Well, you can take a single human cell, and put in a culture and it'll survive, reproduce, etc. so by that definition it's obviously an organism. No, it's not an organism. An organism has to have all of those qualities, not just one or two. Lest you want to call some random human cell a human, I suggest you reconsider that definition. You should give that recommendation to biologists everywhere. Also, this definition seems acceptable for organism to me, so I suppose you could call it this, though I don't see why it needs to be in one of those six categories.
I honestly don't think you can get a good definition of 'human'. In fact, I don't think there is a satisfactory one at all. So you don't have a definition of human... you don't understand the definition of organism... but you're positive that an embryo doesn't qualify... I meant it has all of the qualities. It will react to stimuli, e.g. hormones; it will reproduce; grow is the same as reproduce for small organisms; maintain homeostasis, all cells, and even organelles within them, do this, otherwise life would be impossible because enzymes wouldn't work. And it has all the characteristics of an animal. Cells are not organisms though... at least, they are not considered as such. Otherwise humans would not be single organisms, but rather millions of organisms. Sorry but most biologists would agree with me that a single human cell is an organism, at least those I know. Certainly wouldn't consider a human cell, or bunch of human cells, a 'human'. So most biologists would agree that a skin cell is an organism, but that a embryo is not human? Really... have proof of that? And I don't have a good definition of a human, because I don't think there is one. I can certainly tell what isn't a suitable definition for 'human', though, because it doesn't fit. You can't qualify an embryo, or anything, for that matter, as a human, so long as you can't define it. So you can't qualify anything as a human (because you've admitted that you can't define it)? Are you a human? The onus of defining 'human' is on you, if you want to put an embryo under its banner, not on me. I don't need a definition, you do. Otherwise it's like saying that there's these things called X, you're not quite sure what qualifies as an X, but you're certain an embryo is an X, despite not knowing what an X is. Not very convincing, is it? I've given a definition of human, I'm just wondering where your objections come into play (like if you have other definitions). Of course, getting anything out of you is like pulling teeth. Obviously I can't speak for the majority of ALL biologists, but of those I do know (mostly medical microbiologists), I'd say probably every last one would agree with me. Well, depends which skin cell, some epidermal skin cells could be considered close to dead, so not those. Okay, and they would all agree with you that an embryo is definitely not a human? What definition of human would they use, btw? Humans are a large organism I thought they were millions of symbiotic organisms? A single cell is certainly not a human, though, but is an organism nonetheless. Of course not. But you can't say what human is (or are unwilling to). I ask once again, are you a human? I've already pointed out why your definition is obviously not good. Indeed. But you've not established the alleged facts that you used to support said position. And I've already explained why I don't need a definition, and you do. I presume your statement on burden of proof was this. I reject it, but I'll let you believe that if you'd like. Once again, are you a human? As for my definition of human, I don't have one, I just work on my intuition of what is or isn't human. It generally works well enough for my purposes. You don't know what it is, but you're sure that your intuition is correct? What is your "intuition"? My point is you can't define 'human' satisfactorily because it is a word that is used to describe things which we collectively feel is a human based on our intuition. Generally this works because in most cases what is being talked about appears human to all parties involved. What appears to be a human to you, might not appear a human to another, e.g. an embryo. There is no definition you can find to bridge this gap, hence why I think there is no satisfactory definition. And you do have the burden of providing a definition if you want to convince anyone else using it. And, just so you don't ask the obvious yet again, I would definitely refer to myself as a human, if it wasn't obvious.
If you can't define it than how are you sure that your intuition is generally correct? And what qualifies you as being human? Do you have any reason other than the absolutely worthless "I feel it is true, therefore it is true" argument?
Well... you're now changing the goalposts. You're saying that I have to find a definition that everyone agrees with? That's an absurd standard.
Besides, I think the 'is an embryo a human?' discussion has gone on long enough and doesn't seem to be yielding any fruits.
Concede it is a human and that opens up all sorts of ugly questions. This is precisely the reason most pro-choice people don't concede that it is human, not on any scientific standards. They do it because to do otherwise creates problems for their beliefs.
And I don't think it matters whether it's a human either, because even if we assume it is, killing humans is sometimes beneficial, hence we do it.
An opinion you share with all the great mass-murderers of history. Now, I'm not saying you are like them; just that the idea that human life is in no way sacred and has no inherent rights or value is exactly what leads to societies where human's are slaughtered by the millions.
Definition #1 The word benefit is intended in the "to get what you want" sense of the word, not in the, "become happier" sense of the word. Hence, to 'benefit' is meant as 'to fulfill your desires'. And a beneficial event is, thus, one which brings desires to fulfillment.
Definition #2 The word harm is intended in the sense "to have something you desire to not happen, happen". You can work out what harmful is intended to mean, I imagine.
Premise #1 Beneficial things which are not harmful should be done.
Conclusion #1 Thus, abortions, should, when beneficial, and not harmful, be performed (P #1).
Murder, should, when beneficial, and not harmful (to me), be performed. Abortion is pretty harmful to the fetus, so I assume you can't be saying: not harmful to anyone at all.
Premise #2 The only ones who may be significantly influenced by an abortion are the parents or the embryo(s).
Premise #3 We should only consider whether an abortion is beneficial or harmful to those significantly influenced by it in determining whether it is a "beneficial thing which is not harmful".
Premise #4 A brain is necessary to have desires.
LOL, nice use of selective definition. I suppose if you conflate "benefit" with "desirable"... only that is stupid:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beneficial
Nowhere in the definition of the word: beneficial is any indication that "fulfillment of desires" is what it means. Your entire argument is based on misdefining a word and then using that definition to engage in clever wordplay.
Ultimately though, I like the "I'm not an embryo and will never become one, so feel free to make/kill as many as you want, I don't care" school of thought much better.
"I'm not a Jew, black, woman, homosexual, Asian and will never become one...."
I think you can see why that one is pretty bad.
Also, I notice that you backed off of the "all my biologist friends say" argument pretty quickly.
|
On July 06 2013 01:51 Catocalipse wrote:
Premise #1 Beneficial things which are not harmful should be done.
Conclusion #1 Thus, abortions, should, when beneficial, and not harmful, be performed (P #1).
This premise is pretty contentious, not to mention very vague, because it equivocates between semantic benefit and moral benefit. It gets more contentious when you define "beneficial" to mean (roughly) having to do with satisfying mental desires of some kind.
Even if I were a utilitarian and accepted your first premise, I would add the following clarification to your statement about brains and desire: one must have a functioning brain in order to possess desires. With that in mind:
Suppose we figure out a way to put fully grown, functional adult human beings in suspended animation for an arbitrary period of time. Suppose that this limit of time is fixed by the limits of our technology at the time (i.e. if you go into suspended animation, it must last at least X amount of time, because the machine can only reverse the process at a certain rate, or something). This person is unconscious for roughly X amount of time. During this time, they cannot be woken, but, so long as they remain in the machine, they will be alive in the sense that their tissues, cells, neurons etc. will not be destroyed. They will, however, be essentially inoperative for as long as the suspended animation lasts. Do you think killing this subject of suspended animation should be permitted if one has a fleeting desire to do so? Consider that, from the point of view of the subject, the process is identical to going to sleep and then waking up X time later, with virtually no side-effects beyond, perhaps, some stiffness. And suppose that we know that our technology has a 99.9999% success rate in granting full recovery after suspended animation.
I really hope that you wouldn't want to kill this person, even though their "desires" do not technically exist except as abstract counterfactuals (i.e. if subject was not in suspended animation, they would desire not to die). But that's not good enough to satisfy your argument.
I mean the general problem with consequentialist theories of ethics which rely on functionalist models of personhood to deal with the "value" of agents is that, from the point of view of "functionalism" there is no difference between an unconscious person and a rock with respect to their desires. The best you can do at that point is to introduce some sort of arbitrary appeal to having the "capacity" for desires which would (likely?) be to not be murdered. But then you're just being very ad hoc so it's not really very convincing.
|
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care?
If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't.
Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
|
On July 08 2013 09:01 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post. After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't. Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows;
Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care?
If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved?
There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't.
Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves.
|
On July 08 2013 09:01 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post. After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't. Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother.
and you are a woman i suppose ... ?
... then why do you care?
|
On July 08 2013 09:16 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:01 HackBenjamin wrote:On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post. After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't. Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't. Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves.
White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas?
|
On July 08 2013 10:19 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:16 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:01 HackBenjamin wrote:On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post. After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't. Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't. Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves. White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas?
Because your argument is absurd. The idea that people who are not directly affected by something shouldn't care or have opinions regarding it is ridiculous. I happen to take very seriously the issue of whether terminating pregnancies constitutes a moral action or not, because it happens a lot and because it relies on some very tenuously defined terms (like personhood). Same goes for the examples in the OP about IVF/embryos.
I'm never going to be incarcerated, but I still think that the death penalty is wrong because it's immoral. It doesn't matter that I'm not on death row.
|
On July 08 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 10:19 HackBenjamin wrote:On July 08 2013 09:16 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:01 HackBenjamin wrote:On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post. After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't. Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't. Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves. White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas? Because your argument is absurd. The idea that people who are not directly affected by somethingshouldn't care or have opinions regarding it is ridiculous. I happen to take very seriously the issue of whether terminating pregnancies constitutes a moral action or not, because it happens a lot and because it relies on some very tenuously defined terms (like personhood). Same goes for the examples in the OP about IVF/embryos.
We aren't talking about any old thing here. We are talking about abortion and the philosophy behind it, specifically concerning IVF and Emrbros. The basic fact is, you are poking your nose into the affairs of people, making a judgement about a decision that doesn't involve you, and screaming to anyone who will listen about how the person is committing murder. How is that not absurd?
I'm never going to be incarcerated, but I still think that the death penalty is wrong because it's immoral. It doesn't matter that I'm not on death row.
Strawmanning again?
|
On July 09 2013 08:52 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 10:19 HackBenjamin wrote:On July 08 2013 09:16 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:01 HackBenjamin wrote:On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post. After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't. Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't. Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves. White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas? Because your argument is absurd. The idea that people who are not directly affected by somethingshouldn't care or have opinions regarding it is ridiculous. I happen to take very seriously the issue of whether terminating pregnancies constitutes a moral action or not, because it happens a lot and because it relies on some very tenuously defined terms (like personhood). Same goes for the examples in the OP about IVF/embryos. We aren't talking about any old thing here. We are talking about abortion and the philosophy behind it, specifically concerning IVF and Emrbros. The basic fact is, you are poking your nose into the affairs of people, making a judgement about a decision that doesn't involve you, and screaming to anyone who will listen about how the person is committing murder. How is that not absurd? Show nested quote +I'm never going to be incarcerated, but I still think that the death penalty is wrong because it's immoral. It doesn't matter that I'm not on death row. Strawmanning again?
First, an analogy isn't necessarily a straw-man.
Second, we make judgements about situations that don't directly involve us all the time.
Third, I have yet to see a single argument in this thread that amounts to someone screaming "MURDERER!"
|
I think it is hard to see some of these things in black and white. For example, IVF has brought children to families who really wanted children and who became wonderful parents. The same is true of surrogacy. Of course, there are all types of complications and all types of problems that can arise-such as some of the hypothetical postings of the OP. So it is hard to say it's always right or wrong to use these methods to have a child. As for abortion, I think it is in a different category, but others might not see it that way.
|
On July 08 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 10:19 HackBenjamin wrote:On July 08 2013 09:16 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:01 HackBenjamin wrote:On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post. After taking a well-deserved two-day ban for a vague one-liner, and after talking to Kwark a little in PM, I felt I should flesh my previous statement out. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about abortion and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless the eggs are going to be placed inside of YOU, why do you care? If the fetus is not inside your gut, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the male contributor in many cases. It would be a different story if men could carry and deliver a baby, but we can't. Leave this decision SOLELY to the person who the potential mother. I'll preface by saying that I really find most discussions about African American slavery and associated topics to be extremely fucking tedious. There are a gazillion different angles from which we can look at it, but my bottom line is as follows; Unless YOU or a member of your family is going to be enslaved, why do you care? If you are a white person with a white lineage, why are you getting involved? There are SO MANY variables involved here, and not a single one of them concern people who are not directly involved. Not even the white slaveowner in many cases. It would be a different story if white people could be enslaved, but we can't. Leave this matter SOLELY to the people who are potential slaves. White people can and have been enslaved. By the way, this thread is about IVF, embryos and abortion. Instead of taking my post and replacing words and creating a strawman argument, why don't you come up with your own thoughts and ideas? Because your argument is absurd. The idea that people who are not directly affected by something shouldn't care or have opinions regarding it is ridiculous. I happen to take very seriously the issue of whether terminating pregnancies constitutes a moral action or not, because it happens a lot and because it relies on some very tenuously defined terms (like personhood). Same goes for the examples in the OP about IVF/embryos. I'm never going to be incarcerated, but I still think that the death penalty is wrong because it's immoral. It doesn't matter that I'm not on death row.
The reasoning is quite different imho. In case of the death penalty nobody is contesting that the condemned are actually alive or not. The morality issue only involves whether 'we' have the right to take live away. In case of IVF the issue is whether the 'condemned' are alive or not. This is because one instance can be objectively defined while the other cannot on this dimension.
|
I didn't see this thread before. It's a pretty interesting topic.
I think if you're going to have moral implications with throwing away a stasis-fetus (my new scientific term), you take issue with IVF in the first place as it prevents the unrealized potential of the fetus. When the eggs are removed and fertilized outside of the womb any sort of potential actualization is impossible unless placed back in a womb, so aborting them outside of the womb doesn't really change their potential, and is therefore no-more morally unacceptable than fertilizing outside of the womb in the first place. But of course that depends on whether or not you find IVF as immoral.
Lets say I want to make a sandwich with my girlfriend for later because we're not hungry now. I have bread and she has meat and so we put them together and create one. In order for that sandwich's potential to be realized, as satisfying our hunger, it has to be eaten. So lets say this sandwich never expires, and we decide we don't want to eat that sandwich because our taste buds have changed and no longer like bread and meat. The sandwich's potential to satisfy our hunger won't be actualized if we never eat it, and so its no different if it just sits there on the counter or if it's tossed in the trash can. You could only say that throwing the sandwich away is immoral if you accept that making a sandwich and not eating it is immoral.
As with the case in the OP about the couple that split up, it just seems like lack of foresight among the IVF company to not consider couples breaking up and having them both hold title to their embryo properties.
|
I kinda wanna get back to Kwark's example of the couple. Rights to your own genetic material seem like they'd be obvious but are they? I mean, when I sneeze there's genetic material in my boogers but I wouldn't scream "THOSE BOOGERS ARE MINE! NO ONE ELSE CAN HAVE THEM!!!" But by the same token, the state seems to recognize some genetic rights in that you have to get a warrant for DNA unless given willingly and biological parents seem to get the benefit of the doubt over adopted ones.
Practically speaking, could the woman just have the children and also never be allowed to ask the father for child support for said children?
As far as actual genetics go, once a sperm and egg mix their DNA, all sorts of crazy recombination stuff happens so, yeah, the actual proteins that make up the DNA came from the father and mother (but the base pairs of DNA are the same for all humans) If we're talking about the specific pattern of those proteins, it is unique and belongs to neither the mother nor the father.
So I agree with Kwark that a mother has the right to abort simply because she doesn't want to share her resources anymore. She has a right to her own body. But as far as a fertilized egg outside a womb, by what right does either parent claim something that is completely unique? Simply that they spewed it out their genitals?
In the case of the couple, I would say neither of them has any more right to that egg than the other. And what rights they have over said embryo are tenuous at best. Perhaps even only existing because of whatever contracts they signed with the clinic that extracted and fertilized the egg. If the contract itself doesn't specify any use rights, then it seems like that would be something they'd have to decide on their own in arbitration. Or perhaps even the clinic has more use rights based on the contract than them both and it decides what happens.
Also, has anyone mentioned artificial wombs? They're technically theoretical but I think they're close enough to reality that it's at least relevant to discuss them...although I'm not sure it's useful. But now we have a scenario where you don't need mama's womb. We can go straight from test tube to a fancy bigger test tube and make a sentient, relatively independent human without ever having to even think about the parents past the time they ejaculate/ovulate.
|
I was under the impression that, even though the state needs a warrant to get a DNA sample from you, they're able to still utilize a DNA sample if it's somewhere public (like on a coffee cup you threw into the trash and they discovered) or in the open. I don't think rights to one's genetic material really make any sense per se; if we had a computer that randomly constructed DNA sequences, if one happened to come up that was equivalent to yours, you wouldn't necessarily have any right to it because you had nothing to do with it from a causal point of view. The difference with IVF is that there is at least a causal relationship between parents and embryo.
|
Just wanted to drop by and say that I was an IVF!! Hooray for science! 
|
On July 13 2013 05:29 Shiori wrote:
I was under the impression that, even though the state needs a warrant to get a DNA sample from you, they're able to still utilize a DNA sample if it's somewhere public (like on a coffee cup you threw into the trash and they discovered) or in the open. I don't think rights to one's genetic material really make any sense per se; if we had a computer that randomly constructed DNA sequences, if one happened to come up that was equivalent to yours, you wouldn't necessarily have any right to it because you had nothing to do with it from a causal point of view. The difference with IVF is that there is at least a causal relationship between parents and embryo.
Mother
Father
Clinic
Who has more rights outside of anything stipulated in a contract?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
