Abortion Pill RU-486 Protects Against Breast Cancer

[Winters]

I’m sorry but I just don’t get this utilitarian thing. Taking the concept as its name implies and as you have discussed it, the foundation seems to be whatever works. Squeeze, push, exaggerate, or whatever it takes to whoever (eg the unborn) or whatever (eg the language) to make things work or make things better.

If you’re looking for ethics, there are certainly no ethics whatsoever within such a philosophy.

You concede that human individuals should have certain rights, but then you and your comrades decide who is a ‘qualified’ human and who is not (the way in which you use the word ‘person’ substitutes perfectly for the term ‘qualified human’, btw).

If your posting here was to contrive a benefit of RU-486, then you have certainly failed. Even if the putative benefit exists, do you really think that a chemical so powerful as to override a system which has been so finely tuned by evolution for so critical a task for so many eons would not have profound and sometimes lethal maternal side effects? Or do you know the first thing about biochemistry in the context of evolution?

If none of this is sinking in, do yourself a favor and at least change your approach - it’s just too phony.

Sorry to be so direct, but sometimes the cold, bold truth is the most and only helpful way.

PS Would anyone know where I can find statistics on the number of amniocentesis procedures performed annually? TIA.

 

[hasikelee]

Hi Winter, true and bold post, kudos to you. For those who present on this board with such a mish mash of information, I do like to question them. I mean, does it ever interest you to find out how someone came to believe that you’re not a person if you’re not self-aware? I mean, how do people come up with these things?

This thread reminds me of one gal I bumped into who sincerely and heatedly argued that pregnancy consisted of an egg. And that when it came down the canal, it turned into a human. I wonder sometimes!

Anyways, you may not be able to do anything with this figure as I don’t have a link, but the number for amniocentesis procedures:

124000 procedures (32 amniocenteses per 1000 live births)

 

[Syele]

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

Can you even cite any proof that fetus’ don’t have these things? How can you measure weather a fetus can recall the past or anticipate the future anyhow?

 

[ribozyme]

If your posting here was to contrive a benefit of RU-486, then you have certainly failed. Even if the putative benefit exists, do you really think that a chemical so powerful as to override a system which has been so finely tuned by evolution for so critical a task for so many eons would not have profound and sometimes lethal maternal side effects? Or do you know the first thing about biochemistry in the context of evolution?

No, I rarely said any specific statements about the pharmacology of RU-486 or anything about female endocrinology in this thread. I, of course, refrain from those statements because I do not possess a comprehensive knowledge on those subjects.

I do not know a lot about endocrinology or the signal transduction pathways the sex hormones initiates, but I would agree that they are fine-tuned by evolution. RU-486 is a synthetic steroid hormone that interferes with these pathways (It binds to progesterone receptors (and the receptors of other hormones) and inhibits it by preventing other hormones from binding to the receptor). Of course, it interferes with these pathways as it prevents the fetus from attaching to the uterus. In the context of natural selection, why would such an trait be favored as it prevented the womens genes to be passed on the progeny? So, one has to interfere with the natural process by upsetting the normal hormone regulation to fight against the evolutionary tendency to pass on our genes to progeny.

It seems feasible that RU-486 might have some beneficial side effects. Also, we must consider the negative sides effects of such a steroid. Of course, I would expect it to have negative effects on physiology, as it prevents progesterone receptors from functioning normally, and those functions were fine-tuned by evolution.

In this thread, even if the drug had some anti-oncogenic effect, it does not say anything about the morality of using the drug for chemical abortion. I have mentioned that using an atomic bomb, for the most part, is immoral, but it is not immoral to use it to generate power. (And then we have to worry about the issue of disposing nuclear waste and safety so we do not have another Three Mile Island).** I want to stress that the study, whether or not its conclusions are correct, say nothing about the morality of chemical abortion.**

If you have anything to add about Mifepristone, go ahead. Please correct me if I said anything incorrect about it.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

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.

Pax tecum!

That’s not true at all. Many primates DO possess all those qualities. Have you ever read about or seen the video on Koko (sp?) the gorrilla, for example? The gorilla who was taught sign language and could not only communicate with her trainer, but could hold conversations, had *self awareness, could *feel pain (physical and emotional), *had interests, *could anticipate the future, and *recall the past, especially when her mate died and she spent about a week mourning it. I guess this gorilla was more of a human than a fetus, right?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Winters]

Hasikelee, thanks for the words of confidence and the statitistic. Then is it reasonable to conclude, given that the fetus is killed at least 1 in 400 times, that 310 unborn babies are killed per year by the procedure?

It’s tragic to think that the procedure is sold as a way of ‘preventing’ birth defects. Even if killing is an acceptable means to do so for those parents so inclined, do they realize that most of these babies that are killed are genetically healthy? Aren’t these babies being killed so that the retarded can be identified and killed within legal boundaries?

I pray many have realized this long before I have but I don’t see opposition to amniocentesis anywhere. (The exception must be the proud parents and family of a downs syndrome youngster who are life-long friends of ours though they have never trumpeted this ugly, inconvenient truth which they have chosen to confront so bravely.)

 

[ribozyme]

Pax tecum!

That’s not true at all. Many primates DO possess all those qualities. Have you ever read about or seen the video on Koko (sp?) the gorrilla, for example? The gorilla who was taught sign language and could not only communicate with her trainer, but could hold conversations, had *self awareness, could *feel pain (physical and emotional), *had interests, *could anticipate the future, and *recall the past, especially when her mate died and she spent about a week mourning it. I guess this gorilla was more of a human than a fetus, right?

In Christ,
Rand

I thank you for showing my inconsistency, but not surprisingly Singer would say yes to your question ( I guess this gorilla was more of a human than a fetus, right?) . He actually believes that.

 

[estesbob]

I thank you for showing my inconsistency, but not surprisingly Singer would say yes to your question ( I guess this gorilla was more of a human than a fetus, right?) . He actually believes that.

If you dont agree with him why do you quote him so much? Quoting Singer on ethics is like quoting Mengle on genetics.
But this is the problem with those who have made “science” and the quest for “knowledge” their god. They end up in bed with the Singers of the world. They end up basing the credibility of their sources on how many initials they have after their name, how many big words they use and most importantly how many books and /or articles they have written that likewise contain a lot of big words. And of course only the “elect” are wise enough to decipher these tracts. When pressed in a debate they respond only with big words themselves or quotes from the “elect”-regardless of whether it is relevant or not.

It is a fruitless quest-they will never find any answers-only more questions. And while those around them bask in the love of the Lord they spend their time constructing intricate "proofs’ trying to answer questions most people already have the answers to.

 

[estesbob]

I thank you for showing my inconsistency, but not surprisingly Singer would say yes to your question ( I guess this gorilla was more of a human than a fetus, right?) . He actually believes that.

If you dont agree with him why do you quote him so much? Quoting Singer on ethics is like quoting Mengle on genetics.

But this is the problem with those who have made “science” and the quest for “knowledge” their god. They end up in bed with the Singers of the world. They end up basing the credibility of their sources on how many initials they have after their name, how many big words they use and most importantly how many books and /or articles they have written that likewise contain a lot of big words. And of course only the “elect” are wise enough to decipher these tracts. When pressed in a debate they respond only with big words themselves or quotes from the “elect”-regardless of whether it is relevant or not.

It is a fruitless quest-they will never find any answers-only more questions. And while those around them bask in the love of the Lord they spend their time constructing intricate "proofs’ trying to answer questions most people already have the answers to.

 

[ribozyme]

I will say this: I do not think Peter Singer is evil at all. I see him as a concerned, compassionate, caring man who wants to prevent human suffering. Singer has good intentions.

 

[estesbob]

I will say this: I do not think Peter Singer is evil at all. I see him as a concerned, compassionate, caring man who wants to prevent human suffering. Singer has good intentions.

That speaks volumes about the dangers of making science ones god.

 

[bear06]

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.

Wow! With this definition, a 32 year old under anethesia is not a human. Sorry - flawed theory. It’s also a funny list. I guess my aged relatives must not be human because a few of them cannot recall the past. Heck, my newborns can’t recall the past either.

You must have a cut off date on the pain thing though because it has been scientifically proven that children in the womb feel pain.

 

[st_lucy]

You must have a cut off date on the pain thing though because it has been scientifically proven that children in the womb feel pain.

Yes I was going to say the same. I know I have mentioned this before but I have a cousin who because of a horrible car accident she was in has lost the ability to feel pain. This has been a blessing in some sorts though since she was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. According to Singer she too should not be given the choice of life.

ribozyme:

I will say this: I do not think Peter Singer is evil at all. I see him as a concerned, compassionate, caring man who wants to prevent human suffering. Singer has good intentions.

I know that you keep saying this, but you must understand that Hitler believed the same. I know you sure wouldn’t be saying the same to a group of Holocaust survivors.

 

[estesbob]

I know that you keep saying this, but you must understand that Hitler believed the same. I know you sure wouldn’t be saying the same to a group of Holocaust survivors.

Ribozyme does indeed have strange bedfellows. He is the only person I have ever run across who expresses admiration for Peter Singer

 

[ribozyme]

Yes I was going to say the same. I know I have mentioned this before but I have a cousin who because of a horrible car accident she was in has lost the ability to feel pain. This has been a blessing in some sorts though since she was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. According to Singer she too should not be given the choice of life.

I know that you keep saying this, but you must understand that Hitler believed the same. I know you sure wouldn’t be saying the same to a group of Holocaust survivors.

Well, Peter Singer’s parents survived the Holocaust. He is sympathetic towards them.

I respect Singer because he cares about the welfare of humanity.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme does indeed have strange bedfellows. He is the only person I have ever run across who expresses admiration for Peter Singer

Yes I was going to say the same. I know I have mentioned this before but I have a cousin who because of a horrible car accident she was in has lost the ability to feel pain. This has been a blessing in some sorts though since she was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. According to Singer she too should not be given the choice of life.

I know that you keep saying this, but you must understand that Hitler believed the same. I know you sure wouldn’t be saying the same to a group of Holocaust survivors.

Well, Peter Singer’s parents survived the Holocaust. He is sympathetic towards them.

I respect Singer because he cares about the welfare of humanity.

 

[magician]

I will say this: I do not think Peter Singer is evil at all. I see him as a concerned, compassionate, caring man who wants to prevent human suffering. Singer has good intentions.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!
That said, I think your argument is more in tune with eugenics than with the initial post. I posted the article to draw attention to the fact that a drug is neutral - it can be used for good or for bad.
That said, I don’t understand your position as regards “human” and “potential human”. Either it is or it isn’t. The “potential” definition strikes me as being somewhat duplicitous and opens the door to the eugenics argument.
I personally do not endorse legal remedies against abortion. It’s a practice that is ingrained in society and declaring it illegal does nothing to “save lives”.
On the other hand, the notion that a fetus is less than human and requires the descriptive “potential” suggests that you have assigned a value to that life. This is patently wrong. You simply do not have the right. If a lack of cognitive skills were a determinant as to who lives and who dies, a lot of us would have to run for the hills!
I’m not familiar with Mr. Singer, but I presume he endorses the “compassionate” notion that those in charge should be judge, jury and be able to carry out the sentence without consulting the victim. Although this scenario is sometimes necessary, it would be very disturbing to incorporate it into the culture. It will move humanity to places where we never want to be…

 

[st_lucy]

Well, Peter Singer’s parents survived the Holocaust. He is sympathetic towards them.

I respect Singer because he cares about the welfare of humanity.

I am sorry but did you really mean that he cares about the welfare of humanity?

Isn’t this the same guy who advocates the killing of the most innocent? Doesn’t he also say that anyone who suffers should not have the right to live?

Now who’s humanity does Singer care about the poor child who cannot be heard? The elderly man who is suffering from Alzheimer’s? The accident victim who cannot speak for herself? Or is it really his own humanity, as long as these people who seem to so discuss him, are out of his sight and anyone else who is so called “normal” or those who have what he terms “person-hood”

I am sorry people who say these things really need to be evaluated and locked up in the most secure psych. ward we can find, so that we can care for the real worlds humanity.

 

[ribozyme]

I am sorry but did you really mean that he cares about the welfare of humanity?

Isn’t this the same guy who advocates the killing of the most innocent? Doesn’t he also say that anyone who suffers should not have the right to live?

Now who’s humanity does Singer care about the poor child who cannot be heard? The elderly man who is suffering from Alzheimer’s? The accident victim who cannot speak for herself? Or is it really his own humanity, as long as these people who seem to so discuss him, are out of his sight and anyone else who is so called “normal” or those who have what he terms “person-hood”

I am sorry people who say these things really need to be evaluated and locked up in the most secure psych. ward we can find, so that we can care for the real worlds humanity.

I am confused about Peter Singer’s ethics, but I do see that he does have good intentions.

Estebob? What is wrong with “making science God.” God does not provide treatments for ailments. I do not expect God to provide treatments for cancer, but rather diligent efforts of scientists.

 

[Winters]

Dear Ribozyme,

I want to sincerely thank you for contrasting Dr. Singer’s view against the pro-life view.

It has illustrated for me how genuine is the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic value of each human being.

It is very sad to think that anyone has concluded that another sister or brother is intrinsically worthless.

Indeed, it subverts the very concept of a ‘being’ or ‘entity’ and even strips the term ‘person’ of its traditional usage.