Who would you save - 1000 Blastocysts or 1 Baby?

[D317]

Human life unequivocally begins at conception, but embryos and blastocysts are obviously not a “person” using a utilitarian framework, so dispose of them or to use them in research. According to Singer, an important question regarding the blastocysts is whether they have interests or one can use the classic invokation of Bentham and ask whether they can suffer.

If you hold that human life unequivocally begins at conception, it is by definition a person. It can’t become a rock, a tree, or a turnip. That is unless you have some “qualitative” definition of humanity that states that different types of “human life” are less valuable than others. If fact unborn humans do have interests–Human Life.

As human beings, we all have an obligation to ensure that our fellow human beings, at whatever state of development, have their interests looked out for. We must look out for the interests of the unborn and those who are born but may not have the capacity to look out for their own interests.

 

[Daddums]

Human life unequivocally begins at conception, but embryos and blastocysts are obviously not a “person” using a utilitarian framework, so dispose of them or to use them in research. According to Singer, an important question regarding the blastocysts is whether they have interests or one can use the classic invokation of Bentham and ask whether they can suffer.

I understand perfectly. Human life has no intrinsic value. The hedonistic calculus of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain determines right and wrong. I’ll give you high marks for honesty. That is very rare in pro-aborts.

Daddums

 

[ribozyme]

I understand perfectly. Human life has no intrinsic value. The hedonistic calculus of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain determines right and wrong. I’ll give you high marks for honesty. That is very rare in pro-aborts.

Daddums

So tell me what is wrong with negative utilitarianism or preference utilitarianism (as my own beliefs are a hybrid of those ethical systems). What is wrong with pursuing a utilitarian agenda?

As human beings, we all have an obligation to ensure that our fellow human beings, at whatever state of development, have their interests looked out for. We must look out for the interests of the unborn and those who are born but may not have the capacity to look out for their own interests.

You oppose government programs to help the poor… I do not see how your aforementioned statement is consistent with earlier statements you made against moderate redistribution of wealth. I have my own reasons for supporting that agenda because it is a way to rectify some of the wrongs of nature.

No, embryos are not persons because they do not have the capacity to seem themselves as an entity with a past, present, and future, nor can they suffer.

 

[SoCalRC]

No, embryos are not persons because they do not have the capacity to seem themselves as an entity with a past, present, and future, nor can they suffer.

FWIW, the Church’s position is not that fertilized zygotes are inarguably human beings. Only that they are inarguably human life. Our argument against abortion does not require even the presence of a soul:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

See footnote 19:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”

And the Church would agree with you, neglect for the poor, as well as things like torture and modern forms of slavery, are attacks on the same fundemental teaching as abortion:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: “All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, quoting LUMEN GENTIUM

It is not logical to oppose abortion and accept other attacks on the human person. But neither is is logical to reject other affronts and accept abortion. This is true even in voting:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Catholics in Political Life

 

[Daddums]

So tell me what is wrong with negative utilitarianism or preference utilitarianism (as my own beliefs are a hybrid of those ethical systems). What is wrong with pursuing a utilitarian agenda?

Since the question is off topic and I will keep my answer brief. An inevitable consequence of sin is suffering and death. One cannot be divorced from the other. The hedonistic pursuit of sexual pleasure as an end in itself is sinful and will inevitably bring suffering into the world. Destroying the human life that results only compounds the sin and therefore the suffering. The inability to see or comprehend all the consequences will not in any way mitigate them. God knows all consequences. Even utilitarians, who believe morality is defined only by consequences, should turn to Him for answers concerning moral choices rather than depending on their own limited foresight.

Daddums

 

[Veronica7978]

I wouldn’t bother with the blastocysts…a baby would have (most likely) 2 parents who are rather attached and would be emotionally destroyed if their newborn were left to die. The blastocysts on the other hand…whosever they were would prolly be upset but not nearly as much as the parents of the infant. I know…I’m a bit weird in my reasoning, but what can I say…I don’t like kids so in order to entertain the question I have to think of the parents.

Since you state that you’re here to learn, I’ll enlighten you just a bit on a fact, you have not had experience with…

Parents love their children - at any developmental stage. I only speak from experience as I’ve had several early miscarriages and I can tell you that losing the hope and dreams you have for your child makes you extremely “upset” though you have not gazed upon their face, you’ve held them in your body and your body has nourished them. I don’t know…kooky, but truly how it is felt.

Take care and good luck in your searching & learning!

 

[BioCatholic]

This question is moot because of the principles of “Triage”.

If there were 1000 people entrapped from a collapsed bridge in Idaho, in the freezing and frozen water, requiring painful extrication and extended procedures, and a single person lying on the river banks, the choice is clear.

You save the people that you CAN. Frozen embryos are very delicate, often sitting in liquid nitrogen inside 2-3 interlocking chambers. They are essentially entrapped and require extended and delicate removal. A single baby that only requires picking up and running is the best and most prudent choice.

 

[jediliz]

If its a Catholic hospital that’s faithful to the Magesterium, there wouldn’t be any IVF containers, so save the baby.

Otherwise, this is an unfair question.

 

[D317]

You oppose government programs to help the poor… I do not see how your aforementioned statement is consistent with earlier statements you made against moderate redistribution of wealth. I have my own reasons for supporting that agenda because it is a way to rectify some of the wrongs of nature.

No, embryos are not persons because they do not have the capacity to seem themselves as an entity with a past, present, and future, nor can they suffer.

It took me a while to realize that you had asked me to respond to this. It didn’t reference me directly, but the quote was from another thread I posted. Sorry for the delay. Still waiting on some additional references from you as I research distributism, as I had promised.

I don’t oppose programs to help the poor. I oppose the confiscation of money from one person to help another person. I know, you don’t necessarily see “capital” as being money, but it is.

When we create systems to “rob from the rich and give to the poor” we end up with a system of hand-outs and don’t address the root cause of poverty/being poor.

If I’m poor and only rely on the kindness of a governmental system to meet my needs, I have no motivation (or resources) to better myself. Long time ago I was poor; food stamps and everything. Economic disaster for me & my family. I stayed for about 1 month when I realized that the system was designed to keep me that way. Since I wanted more out of life than a hand-out and perpetual poverty, I took measures that didn’t include government subsidies. Perhaps we could take this to another thread, if you’d like.

I think the direct response to the post should have answered the question about human life. Based on your definition of a person, it would seem as though you exclude a large number of human beings from the category of “persons.”

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t oppose programs to help the poor. I oppose the confiscation of money from one person to help another person. I know, you don’t necessarily see “capital” as being money, but it is.

So I take it that our current policy of redistributing weath upwards upsets you as well?

 

[surfinpure]

So I take it that our current policy of redistributing weath upwards upsets you as well?

I think we ought to observe forum guidelines and stick to the topic at hand.

 

[SoCalRC]

I think we ought to observe forum guidelines and stick to the topic at hand.

Are you saying that it does not relate to pro-life teaching? The Church seems to disagree. Pope John Paul II repeatedly asserted that a socially just economy is a right to life issue, and Pope Benedict followed the same theme with one of the first writings of his papacy.

 

[surfinpure]

Are you saying that it does not relate to pro-life teaching? The Church seems to disagree. Pope John Paul II repeatedly asserted that a socially just economy is a right to life issue, and Pope Benedict followed the same theme with one of the first writings of his papacy.

Ahem…

What I am saying is that the upward distribution of wealth has nothing specifically to do with whether one ought to save blastocycsts or full-grown babies. And I am trying very hard not to be polemical about it. :whacky:

 

[D317]

So I take it that our current policy of redistributing weath upwards upsets you as well?

So I take it that you actually believe that we have policies that confiscate money from the poor to give to the rich? LOL

You must be referring to commerce. That isn’t distributism. No one forces anyone to buy goods and services which do not create more value for the individuals involved.

For example, if I was selling hot dogs for $1.00 each and you valued your $1.00 more than you valued my hot dogs, you are not compelled to execute the transaction. To the extent you value the goods and services of another higher than you value the money you have to make the exchange, you do so.

Again, this is commerce and not distributism. ribozyme can fill you in on distributism if you ask.

Hope that helps.

 

[hasikelee]

The baby first, because smoke inhalation kills quickly.

Has anyone actually worked with those huge vats of nitrogen? It would take several large men to move the ones in our city.

Guess what? There’s a baby that survived a similar moral dilemma. I will have to dig the article out of my car for exact cities, dates, etc. The general report was flooding in a city. Firefighters dragged the huge freezer into a boat and floated it to another hospital.

The very first embryo out of that vat is now grown to a 1 year old, healthy boy.

 

[SoCalRC]

So I take it that you actually believe that we have policies that confiscate money from the poor to give to the rich? LOL

Of the 270B in Bush tax cuts (financed on the Nation’s credit card), $90B went to my income bracket (top 2%). $90B went to the 90th percentile and higher, and the remaining $90B went to everyone else.

Over the last 7 years, household income has actually declined a couple thousand dollars, while corporate profits hit record highs.

I have no doubt that the nation’s current policies are overwhelming geared to benefit me and mine, I just doubt that it is morally right.

And, with respect to surf(name removed by moderator)ure (sincerely), I think it is a relevant issue. If we examine “right to life” in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (see #38), babies and abortion are just a very narrow aspect of a broad, and inalienable right.

 

[markomalley]

Of the 270B in Bush tax cuts (financed on the Nation’s credit card), $90B went to my income bracket (top 2%). $90B went to the 90th percentile and higher, and the remaining $90B went to everyone else.

Do you have the numbers on what percentage of tax receipts came from your income bracket, versus what percentage came from the top 10%, versus what percentage came from the remainder?

The reason I ask is because if the top 5% provide 60% of the country’s tax receipts, if they get 33% of the tax cuts, then that seems to be somehow fair. If the top 10% provide 70% of the country’s tax receipts, then getting 66% of the tax cuts seems fair. If the bottom 70% only pay in 30% of the tax receipts, then it seems quite generous that they would reap 33% of the tax cuts. In fact, if what you say is true, it would seem to me that the system would end up being **more **progressive after the Bush tax cuts than before. How could that NOT be fair?

Source:irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls

Over the last 7 years, household income has actually declined a couple thousand dollars, while corporate profits hit record highs.

The average personal income from 1999-2005 was as follows: (1999) $7,802.4 , 8,429.7, 8,724.1, 8,881.9, 9,163.6, 9,727.2, 10,301.1. 2005 was the last year reported by the Department of Commerce.

Source: irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab5.xls

As to corporate profits, I don’t see how that is a valid comparison. Corporations are owned by people. People make money from those corporations, based on money that they put at risk investing in those corporations. Some of the largest investors in corporations are pension funds and 401(k)s…meaning that those evil profits will help the teachers, factory workers, and office workers who draw upon those pension funds and 401(k)s when they retire.

The Corporate data would take some more analysis than individual data. For example, define profit so that we both agree on the term (as that can be manipulated).

I have no doubt that the nation’s current policies are overwhelming geared to benefit me and mine, I just doubt that it is morally right.

The facts actually don’t bear that out…as far as the actual tax statistics up to tax year 2005 demonstrate. (But, if you hear a lie enough times, you will eventually believe it as the truth)

I remember several years ago going to the Home Depot(r) and buying a bunch of stuff for the house. When I got home, I realized that they didn’t ring up one item that was worth $10-$15 (out of a $250 tab). I felt badly for them, but recognized that in today’s environment, that if I went back with the item, I might be accused of shoplifting the item (even though it was by accident). So I asked my priest for some advice. He agreed that it wouldn’t be smart to take the item back to Home Depot for the reasons above. He suggested that I just put the money in the poor box and press on (since it wasn’t deliberate on my part that I took that).

I would suggest the same to you: if you feel guilty for your benefit, then put your excess into the poor box. That way you are not materially contributing to a (your characterization) unjust economic system.

And, with respect to surf(name removed by moderator)ure (sincerely), I think it is a relevant issue. If we examine “right to life” in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (see #38), babies and abortion are just a very narrow aspect of a broad, and inalienable right.

I, frankly, don’t see the relevance. But I also felt that I should answer the rumors presented as fact.

 

[Hastrman]

FWIW, the Church’s position is not that fertilized zygotes are inarguably human beings. Only that they are inarguably human life. Our argument against abortion does not require even the presence of a soul

Um…you do know that rocks and trees and frogs are beings, right? “Person” is a kind of being and “Human” is a kind of person.

No human can not be a human being–if anything that can be called human exists, it is a human being (as implied by the word “being”).

And the Church would agree with you, neglect for the poor, as well as things like torture and modern forms of slavery, are attacks on the same fundemental teaching as abortion:

But “not creating a government bureaucracy to help the poor according to economic principles that have been widely discredited” is not “neglecting the poor”. You ever hear of trickle-down economics?

It doesn’t work, you’ll say.

You better tell the Nobel Prize committee, they think it’s pretty good.

 

[mapleoak]

The baby first, because smoke inhalation kills quickly.

Has anyone actually worked with those huge vats of nitrogen? It would take several large men to move the ones in our city.

You transfer a thousand blastocysts to an A.I. tank with a handle and grab that with one hand and the baby with the other and then make like lightning!

 

[Hastrman]

Technically speaking, you can’t save the blastocysts because there’s no reason to–they can’t be incubated without in vitro, which isn’t licit. Therefore it is permissible to let them die. You can’t kill them, but you don’t have to unnaturally preserve their lives.