Abortion Pill RU-486 Protects Against Breast Cancer

  • Thread starter Thread starter magician
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

magician

Guest
Interesting though… but it that study itself says nothing about the morality of “chemical abortion”. For one who does not believe in God, I would disagree with Peter Singer on abortion in most cases (I do not consider fetuses in the womb humans, (which is defined by self-awareness, ability to feel pain, have interests, and anticipate the future, and recall the past), but they are *potential *humans so they should be protected), but other moral issues regarding infanticide and abortion are not clear to me. I used to think that Singer’s arguments were convincing in this case, but I have a small amount of skepticism.

Mifepristone is not evil though, it is just an organic compound

An application for one thing (such as cannabis) might be detrimental (marijuana contains carcinogens and is able to affect ones cognitive abilities in a negative way), but it can have potential benificial applications. Well, personally, I believe alcohol is more harmful compared to marijuana, so I think by that logic it should be legalized, but that is off topic.

Same can be said for U-235. It was used in Hiroshima, but the same self-sustaining chain reaction can be used to generate power.
 
ribozyme said:
(I do not consider fetuses in the womb humans, (which is defined by self-awareness, ability to feel pain, have interests, and anticipate the future, and recall the past), but they are *potential *humans so they should be protected)
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

That is not true. Medical science does not say anything about those things defining what a human being is. Medical science says that from the moment of conception it is a living human being, not a “potential human”. From there, science does not add on attachments and requirements for being a human. You are making up your own definition of what a human is, which is a problem with many people these days. I am glad that you are against abortion, but what you list as requirments for being human is simply not true. Many mentally retarded people would not meet your definition of “human”. Nor would people who lack the ability to feel pain. Nor would people with severe alzeimers or demensia.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax tecum!

That is not true. Medical science does not say anything about those things defining what a human being is. Medical science says that from the moment of conception it is a living human being, not a “potential human”. From there, science does not add on attachments and requirements for being a human. You are making up your own definition of what a human is, which is a problem with many people these days. I am glad that you are against abortion, but what you list as requirments for being human is simply not true. Many mentally retarded people would not meet your definition of “human”. Nor would people who lack the ability to feel pain. Nor would people with severe alzeimers or demensia.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
No, I did not make that definition up as it was not my own definition; it is the utilitarian definition of human. You are indeed correct by pointing out that membership in the species *Homo sapiens *makes one a human in the scientific sense. Person might be a better word for addressing this issue.

In the context of ethics, I think that definition is much more practical. I want to discuss the ethical facet of the issue. I might add that I hesistate, unlike Singer, about harming a human in the context of the species definition who do not possess the traits in the Singer definition of person.
 
A baby doesn’t anticipate the future or recall the past for quite a few months after they are born. By your utilitarian definition of personhood, we should be able to kill babies under 6 months of age for no apparent reason because they aren’t persons. Anyway, i’m wondering if taking mifeprestone would have any side effects that would outweigh any possible benefit it may have to a woman with the mutant breast cancer gene. And also, how many cases of breast cancer are caused by the mutant gene vs. other causes like, say, abortion?
 
Interesting. So if this chemical breaks up the compounds, what else does it destroy?

I would think that it is having a positive effect against cell overgrowth or cancerous beginnings similar to the reasons chemo works: kill it all in the hopes of killing it before the woman dies.

The negative effect on the homeostasis of the physiology of the body, and even the negative effect of interrupting a positive control mechanism, are not mentioned in this article.
 
dafalax said:
A baby doesn’t anticipate the future or recall the past for quite a few months after they are born. By your utilitarian definition of personhood, we should be able to kill babies under 6 months of age for no apparent reason because they aren’t persons. Anyway, i’m wondering if taking mifeprestone would have any side effects that would outweigh any possible benefit it may have to a woman with the mutant breast cancer gene. And also, how many cases of breast cancer are caused by the mutant gene vs. other causes like, say, abortion?
Click to expand...
No, no even Singer advocates “we should be able to kill babies under 6 months of age for no apparent reason because they aren’t persons”. And no, I made an argument against doing that here, not because they are persons, but because they are potential persons.

Yes, mifeprestone does have detrimental side effects, but that says nothing about the morality of chemical abortion.
 
ribozyme said:
No, no even Singer advocates “we should be able to kill babies under 6 months of age for no apparent reason because they aren’t persons”. And no, I made an argument against doing that here, not because they are persons, but because they are potential persons.

Yes, mifeprestone does have detrimental side effects, but that says nothing about the morality of chemical abortion.
Click to expand...
ribozyme, you are not being consistent. Just in your first post you said this:
(I do not consider fetuses in the womb humans, (which is defined by self-awareness, ability to feel pain, have interests, and anticipate the future, and recall the past
Click to expand...
Thus, any human that does not have self-awareness, ability to feel pain, have interests, anticipate the future and recall the past is therefore not human to you.

But, for clarification, you really mean does not have the legal status of personhood, right? Because science has already decided when a human being exists. You are talking about who is granted personhood-which is a legal term designated by societies to grant rights to citizens.
 
It’s just foolish to use ‘critical-level personhood’ (my quotes) as a criteria for ‘ethical and legal abortions’. As pointed out earlier in this thread, the moment of creation of a human being is unambiguously defined by scientific principles.

Pro-aborts are trying to use legal means (which in this case are certainly arbitrary means) to biforcate personhood from just being human.

Denying any human being full personhood is wholly and always a terrible mistake.

As for the RU-486 study - I suppose I should really read the original journal article but the whole story strikes me as contrived science. Pure bs.

Now for my question: does anyone no where I might find an estimate of the number of amniocenteses performed every year in the US?

TIA
 
hasikelee said:
ribozyme, you are not being consistent. Just in your first post you said this:

Thus, any human that does not have self-awareness, ability to feel pain, have interests, anticipate the future and recall the past is therefore not human to you.

But, for clarification, you really mean does not have the legal status of personhood, right? Because science has already decided when a human being exists. You are talking about who is granted personhood-which is a legal term designated by societies to grant rights to citizens.
Click to expand...
NO, my arugment was based on the *potentiality *of the fetus, not the fact that it is a human in the ethical sense…

Also, I meant to say: "No, not even Singer advocates “we should be able to kill babies under 6 months of age for no apparent reason because they aren’t persons”
I did not put a to in “not” so it was read as “no”.
 
Sorry to jump in. In regards to this issue, the use of “potentiality” is purely bogus. It’s simply a clever way of sliding in as a given that the unborn are less than human beings. From a scientific perspective, I’m potentially a senior citizen (I’m only 49 years of age right now), but I am, was since conception, and will be until I die a living human being. Don’t confuse stages of life with the essence of a human individual.

Singer and his ilk are being intellectually dishonest regardless of how brilliant his arguments appear at first blush. When an egg and sperm fuse, the resulting being had never existed before and is an entity fundamentally unlike the two precursor cells. And she or he is as genetically human, ribosomes and all, as you and I are. And of course absolutely distinct from her mother or any other human being for that matter. Fully capable of directing her/his subsequent development - unless her/his environment should become hostile or inadequate. But you know all of this.
 
ribozyme said:
NO, my arugment was based on the *potentiality *of the fetus, not the fact that it is a human in the ethical sense…

Also, I meant to say: "No, not even Singer advocates “we should be able to kill babies under 6 months of age for no apparent reason because they aren’t persons”
I did not put a to in “not” so it was read as “no”.
Click to expand...
You must be misusing the word human. You are talking about personhood, which is a legal definition used to grant citizens rights.

Science has already shown us when a human being comes into existence.

So what you are advocating is that until a human being has self-awareness, ability to feel pain, has interests, anticipates the future, and recalls the past, the state cannot grant that human personhood.

Now, since you are advocating this, what exactly are you advocating? By self-awareness do you mean perceptual or physical? By ability to feel pain, how do we determine this? By anatomy (e.g. when a human being has all the components necessary to feel pain) or by some universal concept of pain reaction? What do you mean by interest? Interest in other people? Hobbies? Interest to live? What do you mean by anticipating the future? And how do we know if someone can recall the past?

And also, who decided these are the arbitrary qualifications used to determine personhood. I have heard one or two before, but not so many all together. Do you get to decide which human has personhood status? How come it is arbitrary anyways? Shouldn’t it just be if you’re human, you’re also a person? I mean, I think you’re too short to be a person. KWIM?
 
ribozyme said:
NO, my arugment was based on the *potentiality *of the fetus, not the fact that it is a human in the ethical sense…

Also, I meant to say: "No, not even Singer advocates “we should be able to kill babies under 6 months of age for no apparent reason because they aren’t persons”
I did not put a to in “not” so it was read as “no”.
Click to expand...
I though you were an advocate of pure science??? “Potentiality” is not a scientific term. There is no dispute in science that separate , disitinct, human life is present from the moment of conception.
 
estesbob said:
I though you were an advocate of pure science??? “Potentiality” is not a scientific term. There is no dispute in science that separate , disitinct, human life is present from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...
Huh??? I am an empiricist. Science is merely one form of empiricism. In ethics, I am a utilitiarian as it is empirical because it emphasizes the consequences of one’s actions. Science cannot be used to render moral judgments. I was attempting to define “human” or “person” in the ethical sense, not in the scientific sense.
 
Pax vobiscum!

But your definition is entirely arbitrary and not agreed upon. Also, I am so tired of this “potential human” or “potential person” argument. What else is it if not human? What else might it “potentially” be? A chimpanze? A mouse? An alligator? What about a cat or a dog? Maybe a plant?

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax vobiscum!

But your definition is entirely arbitrary and not agreed upon. Also, I am so tired of this “potential human” or “potential person” argument. What else is it if not human? What else might it “potentially” be? A chimpanze? A mouse? An alligator? What about a cat or a dog? Maybe a plant?

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Do I have to repeat myself???

"(which is defined by self-awareness, ability to feel pain, have interests, and anticipate the future, and recall the past), "

Do the animals you named have the potential to possess those characteristics. A fetus has the potential to possess those characteristics, while none of the animals you listed do not have all thoses chacteristics in any point their lifetime.
 
ribozyme said:
Huh??? I am an empiricist. Science is merely one form of empiricism. In ethics, I am a utilitiarian as it is empirical because it emphasizes the consequences of one’s actions. Science cannot be used to render moral judgments. I was attempting to define “human” or “person” in the ethical sense, not in the scientific sense.
Click to expand...
In other words you believe in “situation ethics”. A great philosophy that segues nicely into the “if it feels good do it” philosophy that was so prevalent in my youth.
 
ribozyme said:
Do I have to repeat myself???

"(which is defined by self-awareness, ability to feel pain, have interests, and anticipate the future, and recall the past), "

Do the animals you named have the potential to possess those characteristics. A fetus has the potential to possess those characteristics, while none of the animals you listed do not have all thoses chacteristics in any point their lifetime.
Click to expand...
And if a peson lacks some of these characterisitcs is it OK to kill them?
 
estesbob said:
In other words you believe in “situation ethics”. A great philosophy that segues nicely into the “if it feels good do it” philosophy that was so prevalent in my youth.
Click to expand...
No, that is not utilitarianism at all!

Remember, we are not animals… utilitarianism does not automatically promote orgies. Instead there are better things one can do to maximize the principle of utility.

I did not say it is morally acceptable to kill them, but I just said that if one does not have those characteristics, one cannot consider them a person in the ethical sense. This position is similar to Singer’s views (but it is hard for one to determine whether other animals “have interests, and anticipate the future, and recall the past”). Singer thinks they do, I do not.
 
ribozyme said:
No, that is not utilitarianism at all!

I did not say it is morally acceptable to kill them, but I just said that if one does not have those characteristics, one cannot consider them a person in the ethical sense. This .
Click to expand...
. Says who? God says we are created in his image and likeness thus ALL human life must be show the upmost respect. You have set yourslef up as your won little god and actually beleive that you decide these issues on our own. Dont you see the utter arrogance of saying “**one cannot consider them a person in the ethical sense” **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top