"Pro-Lifers are Hypocrites"

[Vanny]

The Catholic Church and other church groups and pro-life organizations do a lot to help pregnant women and also mother and baby after birth.
Also, groups like NRLC are one issue, they do not have positions on any other issue, hence there are people that belong to that group that have a variety of views on other things like LGBT, death penalty, gun control, etc.
There are many liberal pro-lifers, the late Nat Henthoff comes to mind.

 

[Elf01]

That is the point when this new being gains biologically independent existence , when if does not rely on the bodily resources of someone else . That is the moment when the symbiotic relationship ends, and the independent existence begins.

How would you respond to this thought experiment?

You are a judge and the following case is brought before you:

Sarah and Louise are conjoined twins who share a vital organ.

If they are seperated immediately Sarah will likely survive but Louise will die.

There is a transplant that would give both a good chance at survival. However there is a 9 month waiting list.

Sarah would like an immediate seperation.

How would you rule assuming there is no precedent or guidance?

 

[Economist]

A human being is a separate organism with human DNA

This leaves the question: “What is a human DNA”? And remember, the devil is in the details.

In chemistry, you can say that “water is a substance, where each molecule is composed of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms”. A little change, instead of 2 hydrogen atoms we can have 2 deuterium atoms, and the result is “heavy water”. Even such a miniscule change results in a very different substance.

But the DNA is not that simple. It is mindbogglingly complicated. It is a very long sequence (about 2.91 billion base pairs) of molecules, which contain the coded “instructions” for “building” a human being under certain circumstances. And the sequence is not precise, there can be big discrepancies from the “base formula” and the result is still very similar to what we call human. It is, of course a mutant, and depending upon the severity of the mutation, it may qualify as a totally different species.

So there is NO such thing as a strict, boilerplate sequence of molecules, which you attempt to call “human” DNA. By the way, approximately 99% of our DNA is shared with the other primates.

I told you MY definition of human being.

And I reject it as insufficiently vague. Not because I like to “obfuscate”, but because it is useless to determine: “being A” is a human, while “being B” is not a human. The fact that you and “@vz71” both charge me with deliberate obfuscation is “uncharitable”, and I call it seriously insulting. I am not in the habit of “flagging” someone, but I feel insulted when charged with deliberate obfuscation, which is just another way to call someone a liar. So, please mind your ways.

Now it’s your turn to tell me yours.

I don’t consider the biological concept of “species” either relevant or useful. I don’t “value” another being just because we have a similar DNA. On the other hand, I consider the basic concept of “sapience” the most important and necessary feature to “value” another being. Regardless of the building blocks of this being (carbon based or silicon based), regardless of the origin of this being (a womb or a vat). If it is “sapient” (wise) it is my “brother”. If that being also happens to have a pleasure-pain center, and thus it is “sentient”, that adds some extra, but insignificant detail to its existence. (Sentient and sapient are not synonyms!)

Furthermore, I am not a Thomist, but I accept that some of his ideas are worthy. One of these is the dichotomy of “actual” vs. “potential”. A potential human is not an actual human.

I said everything what I had to say. If you wish to continue, that is fine. I may or may not pick up the thread. It is totally dependent upon what you have to say. Just, please don’t insult me any further.

 

[vz71]

This leaves the question: “What is a human DNA”? And remember, the devil is in the details.

So in what world do you live in where a lab cannot analyze a blood sample and determine it to be human blood?

 

[blackforest]

So there is NO such thing as a strict, boilerplate sequence of molecules, which you attempt to call “human” DNA.

First, if you must know, as both a vegan and endangered species advocate, I’m not so keen on gorillas lining up at Planned Parenthood for abortions, either. Fortunately, that is not the issue with which we are contending in this thread.

Here is how taxonomists identify species. Linnaeus's System of Taxonomic Classification

If a human female is pregnant, what is the species of organism she is carrying, if not a human being?

Just, please don’t insult me any further.

I’m sorry - albeit a little puzzled - that your feelings are hurt. This isn’t meant to be personal, just a discussion of bioethics.

I didn’t see any definition of “human being” in your post and ask that you please provide one. Or is this not a challenge that you’re willing to accept?

Is there such a thing? Or is it so non-existent that we may all kill each other with no moral qualms whatsoever?

 

[Economist]

If a human female is pregnant, what is the species of organism she is carrying, if not a human being?

It can be a mutant.

I’m sorry - albeit a little puzzled - that your feelings are hurt.

To accuse someone to be intentionally obfuscating is the same as calling that someone to be a liar. To be called a liar is insulting. I don’t know why is this puzzling.

I didn’t see any definition of “human being” in your post and ask that you please provide one. Or is this not a challenge that you’re willing to accept?

I am not interested in giving special consideration to “human beings”, therefore this distinction is irrelevant for me. The only important factor is that the entity in question is an actual (and not just a potential) sapient being. So human beings are the subset of the sapient entities - regardless of the precise DNA composition.

As I said, I already gave all the details I wanted to. Is there anything else you wish to discuss?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It can be a mutant.

Has this ever happened to a pregnant women?

 

[blackforest]

It can be a mutant.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

But what is this organism normally?

To accuse someone to be intentionally obfuscating is the same as calling that someone to be a liar. To be called a liar is insulting. I don’t know why is this puzzling.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

Obfuscation isn’t lying. I think you’re just trying to evade the whole icky killing issue. I don’t blame you. That’s a tough position to be in.

I am not interested in giving special consideration to “human beings”, therefore this distinction is irrelevant for me.

Then why do you want to hear it from me? If whether or not someone is a human being is irrelevant, is it ethical to kill toddlers if we decide we don’t want them?

The only important factor is that the entity in question is an actual (and not just a potential) sapient being. So human beings are the subset of the sapient entities - regardless of the precise DNA composition.

A potential something also has to be an actual something. So what is the human embryo actually, i.e. at the precise time s/he is an embryo?

I am a potential elderly woman and an actual younger adult woman. When we speak of an organism’s development, we can only speak of phases, not different species. Save for some science fiction novels - or Calvin and Hobbes with their notorious transmogrifier - we humans don’t bear any potential to morph into different species. That is impossible. My cat can’t be a potential dog. And the embryonic organism inside of a human mother can’t be a “potential human being.”

Has this ever happened to a pregnant women?

Only in Alien.

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

This is slightly apart of the culture & is a way of attacking GOP voters.

It isn’t just about what pro-lifers are doing to unplanned pregnancies, but also about positions pro-lifers take on the death penalty, wars, gun violence, domestic violence etc.

Of course pro-lifers who, fire women from their work for unwed pregnancies, expel girls from school for unwed pregnancies, are hypocrites.

 

[Anrakyr]

Agreed, the biggest problem is we arnt addressing the cause. Until then it’s a finger in the dam.

 

[Economist]

But what is this organism normally?

Normally? Of course it is a human. But a proper definition must include all the cases.

Obfuscation isn’t lying.

Willful obfuscation is. At this moment I am not interested in this whole “killing” issue. But I already gave an answer and will repeat it here: “as soon as the brain’s electro-chemical activity starts, we should consider that embryo a human being”, and an abortion should be limited to those instances where the mother’s life is in jeopardy. Before that point it cannot be curtailed. Clear enough?

And I also gave my reasoning, which I will repeat here: “Any and all organs can be replaced either by transplant or by artificial prosthesis, except the working brain.” So a full blown cyborg (totally artificial body and an organic brain) is still a human. If and when the activity of the brain can be transferred into an inorganic environment, that being will also be considered an “honorary” human. If we ever discover some space alien which is a sapient being, or if we ever encounter a sapient dolphin or a sapient primate, those will have to be considered “honorary” human beings, and treated accordingly. But a zygote or a blastocyst or a fetus (before the brain develops) are not actual human beings, they are potential human beings.

Is this clear enough?

Then why do you want to hear it from me?

Because you are interested in using that term to curtail the women’s reproductive freedom.

A potential something also has to be an actual something. So what is the human embryo actually, i.e. at the precise time s/he is an embryo?

It is an actual embryo. Which might or might not develop into a newborn. What is an egg? It is a potential chicken. But some scrambled eggs are not fried chickens (even if the eggs happen to be fertilized).

 

[Sbee0]

blackforest:

But what is this organism normally?

Normally? Of course it is a human. But a proper definition must include all the cases.

Obfuscation isn’t lying.

Willful obfuscation is. At this moment I am not interested in this whole “killing” issue. But I already gave an answer and will repeat it here: “as soon as the brain’s electro-chemical activity starts, we should consider that embryo a human being”, and an abortion should be limited to those instances where the mother’s life is in jeopardy. Before that point it cannot be curtailed. Clear enough?

And I also gave my reasoning, which I will repeat here: “Any and all organs can be replaced either by transplant or by artificial prosthesis, except the working brain.” So a full blown cyborg (totally artificial body and an organic brain) is still a human. If and when the activity of the brain can be transferred into an inorganic environment, that being will also be considered an “honorary” human. If we ever discover some space alien which is a sapient being, or if we ever encounter a sapient dolphin or a sapient primate, those will have to be considered “honorary” human beings, and treated accordingly. But a zygote or a blastocyst or a fetus (before the brain develops) are not actual human beings, they are potential human beings.

Is this clear enough?

Then why do you want to hear it from me?

Because you are interested in using that term to curtail the women’s reproductive freedom.

A potential something also has to be an actual something. So what is the human embryo actually, i.e. at the precise time s/he is an embryo?

It is an actual embryo. Which might or might not develop into a newborn. What is an egg? It is a potential chicken. But some scrambled eggs are not fried chickens (even if the eggs happen to be fertilized).

The embryo is biologically programmed to function as it does in that state, and also biologically programmed to one day become a grown adult human. That is the argument that makes the clump of cells line fall down and not get up.

The embryo is human and abortion is deliberate termination of that human’s life. Nothing “potential” about it unless you use that word in the same way as labelling a young child as a potential teenager.

 

[Sbee0]

This is slightly apart of the culture & is a way of attacking GOP voters.

It isn’t just about what pro-lifers are doing to unplanned pregnancies, but also about positions pro-lifers take on the death penalty, wars, gun violence, domestic violence etc.

Of course pro-lifers who, fire women from their work for unwed pregnancies, expel girls from school for unwed pregnancies, are hypocrites.

Agreed. To be fair the caricature on either side can be tiresome for sure. All who lean right don’t hate women, children, immigrants, want to take away health care, etc. All who lean left aren’t anti-religion, pro Socialism etc,

 

[blackforest]

Normally? Of course it is a human. But a proper definition must include all the cases.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

And in those abnormal cases, we have a mutated (drum roll, please) . . . . human being! Such cases usually end with the natural death of the embryo.

But a zygote or a blastocyst or a fetus (before the brain develops) are not actual human beings, they are potential human beings.

Again, a potential X has to be an actual Y . . . or X. I asked you what the embryo actually was, and you replied:

It is an actual embryo.

An embryo of what? An embryo is a developmental phase, just like fetus, child, adolescent, and adult.

Because you are interested in using that term to curtail the women’s reproductive freedom.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

Are you presuming to know my policy position? It’s apparent that you don’t.

What is an egg? It is a potential chicken. But some scrambled eggs are not fried chickens (even if the eggs happen to be fertilized).

A chicken’s egg, following fertilization, contains a chick embryo. Most of the eggs you eat for breakfast haven’t been fertilized. Those that have may contain a minuscule chick embryo but consist mostly in the fluids used to cushion said embryo. Embryo and adult chickens are at very different phases of development, so your bucket of KFC will look a lot different from your

If and when the activity of the brain can be transferred into an inorganic environment, that being will also be considered an “honorary” human.

That’s just your personal opinion, though. I have my opinion, too. I’d argue that bioethically, mine has the upper hand because its more inclusive and doesn’t entail the bigotry and discrimination of singling people out based on brain function.

 

[13pollitos]

A chicken’s egg, following fertilization, contains a chick embryo. Most of the eggs you eat for breakfast haven’t been fertilized.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Hens lay eggs with or without a rooster present. We have hens, no roosters currently, so the eggs my family eats are not fertilized. Most eggs you by in the store also come from hens that have no rooster present. Most of us that sell eggs from our own birds will separate any fertilized and unfertilized eggs because we make more money selling fertilized eggs. People buy them, place them in the incubator, and hatch them. Unfertilized eggs are much cheaper but will never hatch.

Chicken eggs will not develop into a chick unless they are incubated (either by mom or by an incubator). That is why when a hen turns broody she starts “stock piling” her eggs and will sometimes steal eggs from other hens. She begins incubating her eggs at the same time, so even though the eggs may have been laid a week apart, they all hatch within 48 hrs. If an egg is too old when mom begins to sit or she doesn’t turn them properly, or they get too cold, or many, many other things that can go wrong, that egg won’t hatch. The hen stops sitting on her nest after 24-48 hrs and the unhatched eggs are abandoned.

Most people refrigerate their eggs. A refrigerated egg will not hatch because it got too cold. So even if an egg you by has been fertilized, no baby chick is ever going to grow in that egg.

I had a lady try to convince me that if i were truly against abortion I wouldn’t eat eggs because those are baby chickens. I am so glad some people know how chicken reproduction works.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I had a lady try to convince me that if i were truly against abortion I wouldn’t eat eggs because those are baby chickens.

Talk about silly since eating a chicken would then be akin to cannabilism and murder.

 

[13pollitos]

Well, she didn’t eat meat so she might agree with that. I don’t know for sure. But—eggs normally do not have baby chickens in the US. You have to specially order fertilized eggs most of the time.

 

[Economist]

And in those abnormal cases, we have a mutated (drum roll, please) . . . . human being!

It depends on the amount of the mutation.

Such cases usually end with the natural death of the embryo.

So what? We are talking about ALL the possible outcomes.

A chicken’s egg, following fertilization, contains a chick embryo.

But that still does not make the scrambled eggs to become fried chickens. The difference is between the potential and the actual.

I’d argue that bioethically, mine has the upper hand…

I am interested in philosophy, not bioethics. Of course you are welcome to declare an “upper hand”, or a “victory” (it happened before), but that will only cheapen your position. I am NOT interested in winning some brownie points, only having a mutually respectful conversation.

 

[blackforest]

It depends on the amount of the mutation.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

Does she/he mutate into a different organism? (Of course not - I’m just curious if that’s what you actually believe).

But that still does not make the scrambled eggs to become fried chickens. The difference is between the potential and the actual.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

They’re the same organism in different developmental phases. A chick embryo is a potential grown hen or rooster. A baby human is a potential toddler human.

I haven’t seen you make an impelling case for killing someone just because s/he as grown up as someone else.

I am interested in philosophy, not bioethics.

Bioethics is a branch of ethics, and ethics is a branch of philosophy.

Of course you are welcome to declare an “upper hand”, or a “victory” (it happened before), but that will only cheapen your position.

That’s not what I meant. I’m saying that the more inclusive position - human rights for all regardless of developmental phase - must necessarily trump the more bigoted position of human rights only for some - i.e. those who are “big enough” and “independent enough.”

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

Of course pro-lifers who, fire women from their work for unwed pregnancies, expel girls from school for unwed pregnancies, are hypocrites.

Of course I also mean that, firing people from working in Catholic organisations, expelling students from Catholic schools & universities, is also hypocrisy.