Charles Krauthammer ripped Obama for his speech and executive order completely removing the restrictions which Bush had placed on embryonic stem cell research. He called the whole ceremony, "morally unserious."
First of all because so many straw men litter the ground in this debate. So much of the public has little to no understanding of the reality of this debate. When you have a former president who made rulings on this issue repeatedly state in a recent interview that the controversy is about "an embryo that’s frozen and never going to be fertilized," then you know that ignorance abounds.
Let's clear a few things up. There was no ban of stem cell research under Bush. There was not even a ban on embryonic stem cell research. There was a restriction on federal funding being used to pay for the destruction of additional embryos on which research would have been done.
Not only did Obama strike down the restrictions, he did the same to the another Bush executive order that encouraged funding to be directed toward stem cell research that did not destroy human life, which have been successful in numerous clinical tests.
But back to Krauthammer. If there is a conservative columnist who Obama could win over on this issue it is Krauthammer. There is the obvious that he could benefit personally from the research. Also as a member of Bush's Council on Bioethics, he argued that "federal funding should be extended to research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from discarded embryos in fertility clinics." He is not a religious man who believes in life at conception.
All those are reasons why the administration invited Krauthammer to the signing ceremony. He declined and was glad he did.
Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was
populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of
straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice
between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12
seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door
to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.
Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics
over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly explained
the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve,
Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are
morally permissible and others not.…
Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has
nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama's pretense that he will
"restore science to its rightful place" and make science, not ideology,
dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight of hand —
this time to abdicate decision-making and color his own ideological
preferences as authentically "scientific."Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, said "if
human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little
bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama clearly
has not.
"There was a restriction on federal funding being used to pay for the destruction of additional embryos on which research would have been done."
Embryos at fertility clinics are thrown out anyway. Why not use them in research to help cure diseases instead of throwing them away?
"He is not a religious man who believes in life at conception."
So then, why is Krauthammer against ESCR? I read the article, I still don't understand what his problem is. Explain.
Why not use them in research to help cure diseases instead of throwing them away?
There are a lot of variables that play into that question. For starters, I want my objections to much of that whole process noted. I do not like the idea of fertilizing numerous eggs and then freezing the "leftovers."
Secondly, many are not thrown away. Some stay in storage for other possible future use. Some are adopted out of storage and implanted into other women. So, we are not dealing with the same for all those embryos.
The other side of this issue is that there is not ban on using those embryos. If a company wants to invest in that research, they are free to currently do so. I do not think the federal government should give money to destroy human life, regardless of possible benefits to other human life.
So then, why is Krauthammer against ESCR?
If I read the column right, he is not against ESCR. He is criticizing the glib way Obama handled the issue. As he quoted from the discoverer of ESC, the questions should cause us pause and reflection. There should be no rejoicing over the destruction of human life, even if we do not believe that life to be worthy of significant rights.
"For starters, I want my objections to much of that whole process noted. I do not like the idea of fertilizing numerous eggs and then freezing the "leftovers."
Why do you not like this idea?
"Secondly, many are not thrown away. Some stay in storage for other possible future use. Some are adopted out of storage and implanted into other women. So, we are not dealing with the same for all those embryos."
Speaking about the embryo's that ARE thrown away in fertilization clinics, why not use those for ESCR?
"The other side of this issue is that there is not ban on using those embryos. If a company wants to invest in that research, they are free to currently do so."
This is what I feared. We've been over this before, Stem cells: behind the hype. You see my response to this point in the first post. Must we rehash a three year old discussion or can we move on?
"If I read the column right, he is not against ESCR. He is criticizing the glib way Obama handled the issue."
So, if I read your words correctly, Krauthammer is just throwing stones at Obama. He is not actually attacking ESCR with anything of substance. He is only attacking Obama on ESCR for what? What dog does he have in this fight?
"There should be no rejoicing over the destruction of human life, even if we do not believe that life to be worthy of significant rights."
Here is what I wanted to talk to you about. This is clearly your dog. Now sperm is alive and it's human. Human life, right? But, we don't care about wasted sperm. We do care about people so that's the central question. Do you believe that "personhood" begins at conception? Can you provide a none religious answer? I ask for a non religious answer because the rational behind a law should be accessible to all despite what religion, or lack thereof, a person has.
You are correct here Cin: the basis of these objections are purely religious, and a religion of a specific kind. Not all religions believe that "life begins at conception" and, therefore, that the instant an egg is fertilized it becomes a human being and sacred. It's merely an extension of the abortion debate and the attempt by religious fundamentalists to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. If they don't want their tax dollars to go to such research, fine; pretend that your dollars are going to weapons of mass destruction, or bonuses for AIG execs.
As to the neo-con Krauthammer: after listening to him vehemently defend the disastrous attack on Iraq, I feel he's lost all moral authority.
Why do you not like this idea?
Because, as you have pointed out, the results of these techniques are numerous leftover embryos that then raise moral issues.
Speaking about the embryo’s that ARE thrown away in fertilization clinics, why not use those for ESCR?
As I have stated before, they are used for ESCR, but until now have not received federal funding. As to why I would not want them experimented on, it would be the same thing with those on death row, the terminally ill, the extreme mentally handicapped or those who are in a vegetative state. Simply because will soon die or may have no “purpose,” that does not give us the right to attempt to use them for our benefit.
Must we rehash a three year old discussion or can we move on?
I’m not sure how we “move on,” when we disagree on the same issues as before. It was enlightening to read those comments where you scream “HYPOCRITE” at me and have called me an “immoral person” in other threats on this topic, in light of you being offended by my comments in the other thread.
I suppose your point in that thread was the same as mine in the most recent one, to attempt through possibly drastic measures to draw your attention to something that you seemed not to be aware of. Perhaps we both failed in our attempts in that regard.
He is only attacking Obama on ESCR for what? What dog does he have in this fight?
Does one have to have a “dog” in the fight to have an opinion on an issue? Again, I am not entirely sure of the history of Krauthammer’s position on ESCR.
However, the main point he was raising is that Obama is being “morally unserious” if he does not allow for the fact that the destruction of human life is tragic, no matter where the development lies. I think the quote from the discoverer of ESC is especially helpful in seeing Krauthammer’s point.
I do hope we will not go down that silly strawman road again. A sperm is just as much human as skin and hair cells. None of which is worthy of the classification of person. I believe we all agree on this, so why discuss it?
Do you believe that “personhood” begins at conception? Can you provide a none religious answer? I ask for a non religious answer because the rational behind a law should be accessible to all despite what religion, or lack thereof, a person has.
Can you provide a non-religious or faith based reason as to why you believe personhood to be at a different spot?
This carries over from our debate earlier in economics. You insinuate that all of your beliefs are from the evidence, but you have repeatedly said that you don’t know when personhood begins. I’m not aware of any real scientific justification you have for when you say it takes place. What makes your delineation of personhood less “religious” than mine?
Anytime you are debating about obvious issues of morality, even if you are saying that it is moral to fund ESCR, you are engaging in something that is based on your personal convictions which are shaped at some level on a faith of some kind. You have a faith in “science” that they will use ESCR to develop beneficial cures for humanity. You could almost say that you hold science to be eventually infallible.
Insisting that any answer I give must not be influenced by my faith, is a faith-based assertion because you are assuming (on faith) that it is my faith (not yours) which is hampering the discussion and preventing any agreement.
I might as well ask you to come up with an answer that was not informed by materialism or your belief in evolution. It is virtually impossible and an unfair debate burden that is often only shared by one side.
What you really mean is that you want me to answer you objections by your standards using your view of morality. If you simply were trying to be fair and have everyone express and ground their view to where it was accessible to all others, you have to formulate your argument differently for every possible worldview. Why should I not have the right to ask you to formulate your argument from the Christian perspective, as that is the one I accept? Why is it that the only acceptable reasoning for all groups is the one that happens to fall in your belief system?
But to step aside from the philosophical debate for a moment, my answer would be that from what I see scientifically the easiest point at which to establish personhood is at conception.
Is there another point at which you can scientifically argue that personhood has been achieved? Daniel points to brainwaves. Possibly, but what if there are other things happening earlier that we have been unable to detect so far, as brainwaves were to previous generations.
I have never been given a valid scientific reason as to why conception is not a viable point at which to assert personhood.
It’s merely an extension of the abortion debate and the attempt by religious fundamentalists to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
Louis, that whole line of thinking is unfair and illogical.
Do I want to “impose [my] beliefs on the rest of [you]?” Only as much as you do. Everyone has their beliefs and everyone believes them to be correct and beneficial to society. You believe society would be better with ESCR and gay marriage and you think it is perfectly okay to force those on anyone who may disagree. Correct?
You may argue that your reasons are better than mine and you may be right, but at that point you are acknowledging that it is a matter of discussion for all belief systems and you have no problem with doing the very thing for which you condemn others.
Is it acceptable and right for one group to determine the values and regulations of our country, while arguing that the other cannot because of their religious viewpoint? It seems you are arguing that it depends on which group is the one determining the values. I would argue that a society should welcome discussion and input from all of the citizens and then determine based on those presentations, not by working to keep one side out of the debate completely.
At this point, I hear your retort that Christians have long engaged in that very thing to gays. To which I respond, you are correct and was it right then? It was not and is not right. That should be the only standard one can have. Either is always wrong or always right.
TYPO: In my third question/response, I wrote:
That should be threads, not threats. Wanted to make sure I cleared that up.
“Because, as you have pointed out, the results of these techniques are numerous leftover embryos that then raise moral issues.
Is this true for non-evangelicals though? For example, what moral issues should freezing embryos raise with me, or Louis, or Joe secular, etc?
“As to why I would not want them experimented on, it would be the same thing with those on death row, the terminally ill, the extreme mentally handicapped or those who are in a vegetative state.”
So, you believe that blastocyts = people; entitled to all the rights that people have. Am I correct? Tread carefully here and think about it before you answer. :)
“I’m not sure how we “move on,” when we disagree on the same issues as before.”
This was in reference to your point about there being no ban on stem cell research. While it’s technically true that no law bans embryonic stem-cell research, [then] current administration policies have had much the same effect as a ban. I believe the hypocrite charge was for something else.
“Does one have to have a “dog” in the fight to have an opinion on an issue?”
Well, if Krauthammer has no dog in the ESCR fight then wouldn’t that make him “morally unserious” about the ESCR subject? Basically, he is just bashing Obama. He is not concerned about ESCR since, 1. “He [Krauthammer] is not a religious man who believes in life at conception and 2. If I [Aaron] read the column right, he [Krauthammer] is not against ESCR. Sure, Krauthammer is entitled to his opinion about ESCR but it is “morally unserious,” is it not?
“However, the main point he was raising is that Obama is being “morally unserious” if he does not allow for the fact that the destruction of human life is tragic, no matter where the development lies.”
Well, if you believe Krauthammer himself is not against ESCR then where does he get off chastising Obama about ESCR? He can’t and doesn’t criticize Obama for the President’s actual position on ESCR so Krauthammer is just throwing stones at Obama because he doesn’t like Obama’s attitude or something. It’s rather weak stuff, don’t you agree?
“I do hope we will not go down that silly strawman road again. A sperm is just as much human as skin and hair cells. None of which is worthy of the classification of person. I believe we all agree on this, so why discuss it?”
Here, I think you are just repeating the point I made though. Here is what I said, “But, we don’t care about wasted sperm. We do care about people so that’s the central question. Do you believe that “personhood” begins at conception?” I say “we don’t care” and you ask “why should we discuss it?” Why indeed when we don’t care?
“Can you provide a non-religious or faith based reason as to why you believe personhood to be at a different spot?”
Yes, of course I can. I have written about this at length before and I’d be glad to provide a link if a long explanation is what you want. It’s all my writing so it’s not like I’m linking to an article.
In a nutshell, determining the point of “personhood” is akin to determining the point of “adulthood.” Both are only informed approximations. Does one really turn into an adult at exactly 18? In some countries it’s 16. I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to determine when exactly someone becomes a person. They can say around this time frame and support that. They can say someone becomes an adult around 16 – 18 years and support that contention. It really depends on the maturity level of the individual in question. Oddly enough, Seeker can probably provide a good explanation to you as well. On his C-Ral website he places “personhood” after conception based upon heart beat, brain waves etc. I wildly disagree with Seeker about the time frame but our rational behind personhood is similar.
You don’t do that though. You claim that “personhood” begins exactly at the point of conception. Can you support your claim reasonably or do only evangelical Christians have access to your reasoning?
“You insinuate that all of your beliefs are from the evidence, but you have repeatedly said that you don’t know when personhood begins.”
Exactly right. I don’t know exactly when a person becomes an adult but I can provide evidence that it’s not at age 5 and it’s not at age 65. I don’t think people magically become adults at a specific point. I think both “personhood” and adulthood are processes.
“What makes your delineation of personhood less “religious” than mine?”
Because it’s not a faith based estimate. It’s an informed estimate, like determining when someone becomes an adult.
“Anytime you are debating about obvious issues of morality, even if you are saying that it is moral to fund ESCR, you are engaging in something that is based on your personal convictions which are shaped at some level on a faith of some kind.”
Well, this is something I’ve discussed at length with friend Keith. I don’t think there is any faith element in morality at all. I think basic morality is hard wired in our genes and overlayed by a capacity to reason. This results in more complex moral behaviour. If you want more detail, I can provide a link to this discussion.
“You have a faith in “science” that they will use ESCR to develop beneficial cures for humanity. You could almost say that you hold science to be eventually infallible.”
This is also untrue. I hope that science will develop beneficial cures for humanity. Though promising, it’s not certain. And no, one can’t say that I hold science to be infallible. That’s laughable. Science makes mistakes all the time. Is Pluto a planet?
“Insisting that any answer I give must not be influenced by my faith, is a faith-based assertion because you are assuming (on faith) that it is my faith (not yours) which is hampering the discussion and preventing any agreement.”
Huh? What the heck are you talking about? I ask for a non religious answer because the rational behind a law should be accessible to all despite what religion, or lack thereof, a person has.
If a Muslim president comes into office and starts making religious laws based upon Muslim religion, shouldn’t he be able to justify those laws with a non-religious, reasonable basis? If his Muslim law is to be obeyed by all should people at least be able to understand WHY they should obey it?
“But to step aside from the philosophical debate for a moment, my answer would be that from what I see scientifically the easiest point at which to establish personhood is at conception.”
Fair enough. Tell me why.
“I have never been given a valid scientific reason as to why conception is not a viable point at which to assert personhood.”
Well, we need to be clear. Aaron, how do YOU scientifically define a person? We’ve agreed a person has to be more than alive and genetically human or else sperm cells would be considered people. Tell me what you think a person is. I’ve done this on other threads and can link to them if you like but I need to know what your scientific definition of a person is to properly answer you.
P.S. Aaron. I'd like to make this discussion friendlier than the other one we had. I've tried to do this with my last post by addressing only the arguments.
Is this true for non-evangelicals though?
I think its true that everyone should have some level of concern that human life is being mass produced and stored in a freezer and then pulled out to be destroyed for the benefit of other human life.
That is Krauthammer’s jist – he is arguing that it is acceptable for people to come to different conclusions on this discussion, but it is not acceptable to do so flippantly or glibly as if there are no moral issues or questions involved.
No matter how you view the embryos, they are distinct human life. Do you agree that it is not the same as experimenting on bacteria? We should treat it with more respect than that, correct? Is the discussion not about the amount of respect and rights versus the presence or absence of them?
So, you believe that blastocyts = people; entitled to all the rights that people have. Am I correct?
We’ve chased this rabbit before. I don’t find it illogical at all to hold that human life is worthy of protection, no matter the stage of development, while at the same time having the inclination to save a hypothetical little girl versus a “petri dish” in the event of a fire.
As before, I think it is fairly obvious that we should not base the legal status of human life based on the popularity of said human life being saved in a fire. That system of morality would not bode well in advancement of the way people view those that are different from them.
Just because Nazis wouldn’t save Jews or KKK leaders save an African, doesn’t mean that they have any less value. Simply because I, or anyone else, would choose to rescue a little girl over a frozen embryo demonstrates nothing to the humanity or “personness” of either life. It is a false dichotomy.
I say “we don’t care” and you ask “why should we discuss it?” Why indeed when we don’t care?
I was not address the entire issue, but merely the specious reasoning behind the equating of a skin cell which shares the DNA with it’s owner with an embryo which has distinct DNA from its parents.
I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to determine when exactly someone becomes a person. They can say around this time frame and support that.
That’s my point. You claim this is an open and shut scientific case, while saying that it’s not possible for anyone to determine the exact moment – except to say that my determination is wrong. How is that even possible?
We can’t know exactly when, except to know that it is exactly NOT at conception. Huh?
You don’t do that though. You claim that “personhood” begins exactly at the point of conception. Can you support your claim reasonably or do only evangelical Christians have access to your reasoning?
How is the logic that the moment human life begins along it’s “process” it becomes a person accessible only to evangelical Christians? (I would also think it worthy of noting that this is not simply evangelical notion, but rather also a Catholic concept and other faith groups as well as some with no faith.)
The moment of conception seems to be to be a definite moment at which science can pinpoint and demonstrate a significant change has taken place – human life has begun. Why would you not start personhood at that moment? It is a scientifically verifiable time, as opposed to some vague “between this point and this point.” How is your shifting rule of thumb more scientifically based than my definite factual moment?
I ask for a non religious answer because the rational behind a law should be accessible to all despite what religion, or lack thereof, a person has.
Again, you ask for a solution from your perspective, which is a reasonable request in a discussion of this sort, but is an unfair requirement when discussing policy at large.
Your rationale based on a naturalistic point of view is completely foreign to me. I can’t fathom why anyone would support the destruction of embryos or abortion. So should I force you to accept my worldview and explain your ideas from that perspective?
It is a type of “setting the deck” in a discussion. You tell me that I can only answer questions in a manner that fits your ideological persuasion. That handicaps me and causes me to “play the game” on your terms in your worldview, where I will be at a distinct disadvantage, since I do not accept it.
Again, I might as well ask you to respond to my objections in a Christian manner, without being influenced by naturalistic thinking or Darwinian evolutionary theory. You have core beliefs that impact and influence all of your thinking, as we all do. Therefore, it is unfair and illogical to ask someone to respond in a manner that completely rejects that core beliefs.
Tell me what you think a person is…
I believe we as humans become persons the moment we are distinct from our parents. When the egg and sperm join to form new DNA that is ours through out our life, that is when life begins and I see no reason to separate personhood from that moment.
As I discussed earlier, Daniel often points to brainwaves as the beginning point. But as I pointed out we have not always been able to determine brainwaves. What if there is another measurement that we cannot make yet?
There is also the idea of viability outside of the womb, which continues to be pushed back farther and farther. But that whole concept is illogical because a baby in the womb and out of it is totally dependent on others for it’s well-being. One of the reasons while horribly consistent “ethicist” Peter Singer argues that parents should be able to kill children upwards of age 3 because of their lack of cognitive skills and ability to survive on their own.
However, he also thinks that a person loses their personhood when they are unconscious (sleep any one?), so he, though intelligent, is a moron and not worth listening to on any issues of this sort, or any sort really, save being an example of a highly educated, bright person being an absolute idiot.
“…it is not acceptable to do so flippantly or glibly as if there are no moral issues or questions involved.”
Well, for Krauthammer there are no serious moral issues or questions involved in ESCR. That’s why he himself is “morally unserious” about the subject and glibly attacks Obama for being glib. LOL!
“Do you agree that it is not the same as experimenting on bacteria? We should treat it with more respect than that, correct?”
Sure. But how is freezing disrespectful? Don’t we disrespect blastocyts more when we throw them in the trash? I don’t think freezingn blastocyts is disrespectful to them. It’s not as if we are going to hurt their feelings.
“while at the same time having the inclination to save a hypothetical little girl versus a “petri dish” in the event of a fire… [and] …we should not base the legal status of human life based on the popularity of said human life being saved in a fire.”
So, why do you have the inclination to save the little girl and not 5 blastocysts in a petri dish if it’s not a popularity contest with you?
“Simply because I, or anyone else, would choose to rescue a little girl over a frozen embryo demonstrates nothing to the humanity or “personness” of either life.”
It demonstrates what you actually think about “personhood” where the rubber meets the road. The scenario is, 5 nondescript lives vs 1 nondescript life. Yet, you choose to save the 1. Is that moral?
…the specious reasoning behind the equating of a skin cell which shares the DNA with it’s owner with an embryo which has distinct DNA from its parents.
Huh? Where did I make that comparison? You must be thinking of another discussion we had. We can discuss it if you like. The reasoning has to do with cloning. One can have the exact DNA as the owner and still be a person. The DNA does not have to be distinct to be a person. We can clone dogs. The clone of a dog does not have to be distinct for the clone to be considered a dog.
“That’s my point. You claim this is an open and shut scientific case, while saying that it’s not possible for anyone to determine the exact moment – except to say that my determination is wrong. How is that even possible?”
Read this again, please: I don’t know exactly when a person becomes an adult but I can provide evidence that it’s not at age 5 and it’s not at age 65. I don’t think people magically become adults at a specific point. I think both “personhood” and adulthood are processes.
“We can’t know exactly when, except to know that it is exactly NOT at conception. Huh?”
You know that it’s not exactly at birth, huh? Seeker knows it’s not exactly at conception and not exactly at birth, huh?
“How is the logic that the moment human life begins along it’s “process” it becomes a person accessible only to evangelical Christians?”
The process is my claim. A blastocyst develops into a person. A blastocyst is not a person from the start. The evangelical claim is that “personhood” is not a process. They claim a blastocyst is a person at conception. The latter seems accessible only to certain Christians (noted).
“The moment of conception seems to be to be a definite moment at which science can pinpoint and demonstrate a significant change has taken place – human life has begun.”
How did we find ourselves back here? This is a regression. Human life does not begin at conception. Your sperm, and mine, is human. It’s definitely not canine. It’s definitely alive. It’s not dead. It’s not inanimate. So, it’s human life. No one cares about sperm though. “Personhood” is the real question. We care about people.
“Why would you not start personhood at that moment? It is a scientifically verifiable time, as opposed to some vague “between this point and this point.”
Why not start adulthood at exactly 18 years old? It is a scientifically verifiable time, as opposed to some vague time between 16 and 19? The reason is there is no way to pinpoint exactly when children grow up.
“How is your shifting rule of thumb more scientifically based than my definite factual moment?”
I can provide scientific evidence for my estimate. When asked to provide scientific evidence for “personhood” at conception, you can’t. You just say I’m being unfair for asking you.
“Again, you ask for a solution from your perspective, which is a reasonable request in a discussion of this sort, but is an unfair requirement when discussing policy at large.”
My answer to this was, “If a Muslim president comes into office and starts making religious laws based upon Muslim religion, shouldn’t he be able to justify those laws with a non-religious, reasonable basis? If his Muslim law is to be obeyed by all, should people at least be able to understand WHY they should obey it?”
We are discussing policy at large here. Also, it’s not just my perspective. It’s everyone who does not share YOUR perspective.
“I can’t fathom why anyone would support the destruction of embryos or abortion.”
I don’t know anyone who does. They simply think that personal choice and curing diseases and alleviating suffering are more important. It’s a difference in priorities.
“…it is unfair and illogical to ask someone to respond in a manner that completely rejects that core beliefs.”
It’s not unfair to ask you to explain your beliefs in such a way that I, and others who don’t share your world view, can understand. The language of logic and reason should not be so foreign to you that you can’t even speak to me about “personhood”. Reason and logic is something we both share. When someone tells me that they can’t speak or explain an idea or belief they hold in a reasonable manner, I dismiss that person as not being serious.
“I believe we as humans become persons the moment we are distinct from our parents.”
Okay so you think “personhood” begins at conception. That’s established. The actual question was, “Aaron, how do YOU scientifically define a person?” I don’t see how scientifically, distinct genes from parents makes a person. A clone of you would be a person, right? Yet, his his genes would not be distinct from yours. And, even if the genes are different, is that all that makes a person a person? There is a difference between being human and being a person.
“What if there is another measurement that we cannot make yet?”
Like what?
“There is also the idea of viability outside of the womb, which continues to be pushed back farther and farther.”
I don’t subscribe to that.
“Peter Singer argues that parents should be able to kill children upwards of age 3 because of their lack of cognitive skills and ability to survive on their own.”
I don’t subscribe to this view either. Don’t attribute it to me. You do a good job attacking Singer but as far as what I’ve said here, the bombs you’re droping are exploding somewhere far off in the distance.
To answer Aaron, I don't think we should impose gay rights or the results of stem cell research on everyone. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, don't have one. If you want to continue to hate gay people because the Bible tells you so, continue. If you don't want any of the therapies which come from stem cell research, don't. I don't want the government to create laws or alter the constitution to impose those beliefs on you at all. Just don't seek to use the legal system to impose your beliefs on me. We live in a pluralistic society, a society where anyone can follow the religion of their choice and order their lives accordingly. It's wrong for any religion to try to use the law to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Just because you "don't want your tax dollars used that way" doesn't mean that I must be prevented from having my tax dollars so used. And being prevented from using the political/legal system to impose your religious values on me doesn't mean that you are somehow being discriminated against or your religion being disrespected. You get a seat at the table not the whole table.
Cin, I'm going to get to yours.
Louis…
hate gay people because the Bible tells you so
Can't let that slide. That's false both in what the Bible says and what the discussion is about.
We live in a pluralistic society, a society where anyone can follow the religion of their choice and order their lives accordingly. It's wrong for any religion to try to use the law to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
We do live in a pluralistic society. I very much agree. But you always assert that my expression of my choices in society are "imposing" on others. But yours is not. That is not the case.
Every is free to have their opinion of what to do in certain situations, but in most of these issues the government is going to have to take a stance. Either way someone is going to have something "forced" on them. The question is whose values are accept and whose are rejected.
My perspective, which has a basis in a faith, should not be rejected from policy discussions simply because of that basis. That is discriminatory and dangerous.
As I said earlier, it is disingenuous to say you want pluralism where everyone has input into the discussion, but then rule certain viewpoints as unacceptable from the start. Why is a secular, naturalistic viewpoint the only one allowed to dictate the direction of our culture?
You say "I" (representing my viewpoint) get a seat at the table, but if my viewpoints are enacted into law then I would be forcing that viewpoint on everyone else. Somehow it is only fair if it is your viewpoint that the law supports.
I've never asked for anything but a "set at the table," but you seemed to have expressed your desire that my seat at the table be a non-voting seat – it's wrong if my views become laws.
Just because you "don't want your tax dollars used that way" doesn't mean that I must be prevented from having my tax dollars so used.
My preference does not override your preference, in and of itself, but at some point a choice by the government must be made – then someone will get something "forced" on them or see something not supported.
And yet your religion seeks to use government to impose (yes, impose!) its dogmas about human sexuality on me, personally, via such vehicles as voter initiatives and government legislation. Take the recent victory of Prop. 8 here in CA: by a bare majority, the voters placed a constitutional amendment into effect denying gays of marriage rights already established by our supreme court. This initiative had heavy support and involvement by organized monotheistic religion, particularly the Mormon Church, the Roman Catholic Church and various evangelical and fundamentalist churches. You may think this is just fine and dandy as it isn't your horse being gored and it's your position being written into law, but to me it was tyranny by the majority, egged on by religion. To argue that preventing your religion from taking away civil rights from an unpopular minority is somehow "discriminatory" is absurd! Your belief-system is your own, but I shouldn't be forced to bow to it under force of law. The "perspective of faith" doesn't allow for dissent or pluralism or tolerance of other perspectives: as the opinion of God it is absolutist, the province of ultimate Truth. When it is applied to politics it leads to tyranny (eg, dissent from theocratic rule becomes heresy).
The choice of government shouldn't be for one faith or belief over another, but to allow a multitude of perspectives to flourish, unhindered by government fiat. This is called freedom. Unfortunately, it also conflicts with religious belief, at least in the political realm.
Louis, I understand the frustration. I really do, but let me ask you a question: what would your model of government look like? What role would people of faith play in it?
You can't simply repeat your line of having a seat at the table, but not having the whole table, because you don't want the policy ideas of those with faith enacted. You want to limit their influence on government. Again, I understand that, but you have to explain exactly how it would play out without ending up with replacing what you see as a discrimination of your views with a discrimination of my views.
The choice of government shouldn't be for one faith or belief over another, but to allow a multitude of perspectives to flourish, unhindered by government fiat. This is called freedom.
Freedom to do what? Apparently not influence the government of our nation. Freedom to stay in my church and not make any statements on policy or vote in accordance with my worldview?
Again, I'm going to need you to explain how you can champion freedom while calling for my input to be limited simply because it has a basis in my faith.
Cin, I promise I'm coming with a response. This week is going to be limited because I have a test and a paper, but I will respond to you.
I don't know. Maybe we should have a constitutional amendment banning christians having any say in politics. There's a recent precedent here in CA.
I support religious faiths to fully participate in the democratic process.
Please visit my web address, WilliamLee2014.org.
That is exactly my point. You speak of fairness, but you desire retribution. You cannot lecture about how everyone should have a voice in the process because you don't honestly believe that.
My position on gay marriage, etc. does not limit me from allowing and encouraging those who disagree with me to participate in the process. If they "win" through the proper channels of our government, then that will be the result and I will work to either change it through the same manner (depending on what the "win" would be) or work through the proper channels to limit what I would see as the negative unintended consequences.
Your solution is to prevent me and those like me from having a voice in public policy because of our faith. Tell me how that is not discriminatory. It is wrong if I prevent you from speaking out because of your sexual orientation. It is wrong for you to do the same because of my faith.
Why should I? You guys established the principle that a simple majority vote can take away civil rights and create a whole group of second-class citizens just because that's your "faith." Fairness has nothing to do with it. Since this principle has now been established, why complain? Or is it only to be used against those you oppose? Since now we have established that the courts are irrelevant in protecting the rights of the minority, that "faith" trumps constitutional guarantees for every citizen, why are you complaining when I apply it to you?
The difference between us is that my belief system includes yours, but your belief system doesn't include mine. In reality, I think you should order your life according to your own lights, but you don't extend the same courtesy to me. You don't believe in gay marriage, so you want to deny me that right. It's part of your "faith" to deny equal protection under the law to gay people. That's why I think you are imposing your "faith" on me. Belief whatever you want, but don't tread on me!
The evangelical claim is that "personhood" is not a process. They claim a blastocyst is a person at conception. The latter seems accessible only to certain Christians (noted).
Then how are there people from other religious leanings and atheists who hold to the same line of thinking?
You keep stating that, but you haven't offered any evidence as to why the reasoning is only accessible to certain Christians. If you substitute "accessible" with "acceptable" then you may have a point, but any one should be able to understand the reasoning.
I've yet to make any appeal to the Bible or any sense of Christianity in this discussion, so again why is it only there for Christians.
I see no reason scientifically or morally to separate human being from person. The moment a human being comes into existence (scientifically), I feel they should be viewed as a person. You feel that happens over a process, how is your view of personhood more scientific than mine? I've yet to see you adequately answer that. You've asserted and reasserted your opinion in the discussion, but haven't shown why mine stance is unscientific and purely Christian.
Also, it's not just my perspective. It's everyone who does not share YOUR perspective.
What about everyone who does not share YOUR perspective? Do you have to respond in a manner that is accessible to them? Do you have to assume Islam to reason with a Muslim?
Here's my point: I have to assume naturalism to make a point to you. That reasoning is not accessible to everyone, as you like to point out. I'm supposed to leave behind a basis for my thoughts on this subject and subscribe to your basis to make a point. That's totally not acceptable in a debate.
You assume that naturalism is a shared assumption for everyone – it's obviously not. Making a point from a naturalistic point of view, is just as biased and discriminatory as making a point solely from the Bible. You said, "Reason and logic is something we both share," but naturalism is not.
You do a good job attacking Singer but as far as what I've said here, the bombs you're droping are exploding somewhere far off in the distance.
But if personhood is sliding rule that happens sometime between two points, how would you argue against Singer? Why is his view morally or scientifically wrong? That's my point. You disagree with him (good!), but why?
Aaron, this is your entire response? Lame. :) I'll hope for more later on the assumption you didn't have time to write something better. I'll address what you wrote so far though.
"Then how are there people from other religious leanings and atheists who hold to the same line of thinking?"
That the Christian God makes a person a person at conception? You think atheists and people from other religions hold that line of thinking?
"I see no reason scientifically or morally to separate human being from person."
Then why do you chose to save the little girl from the fire instead of the five blastocysts in the petri dish?
"Do you have to respond in a manner that is accessible to them?"
Well, ya! LOL We both have access to reason and logic.
"Here's my point: I have to assume naturalism to make a point to you."
No, you don't. Just tell me why you believe what you believe about "personhood."
"The moment a human being comes into existence (scientifically), I feel they should be viewed as a person."
What's your reasoning "(scientifically)" that a human being/person comes into existence at conception?
"…but haven't shown why mine stance is unscientific and purely Christian."
The pending paucity of your answer to the preceding question will illustrate why your stance is unscientific and purely Christian.
Could you please show me where I said the Christian God made human beings a person at conception? Again, could you show me at what place in this conversation, I appealed to my faith as a reason why you should accept my premise.
Then why do you chose to save the little girl from the fire instead of the five blastocysts in the petri dish?
If you choose to save a family member over five strangers does that make your family member a person and the others not? What if I chose to save the five and not your family member, would that make your family not a person?
That is such a silly comparison that I don't see why you find it so compelling. As I have stated repeatedly, do you honestly want personhood to be established based on who the majority of society would save in a fire?
Obviously the human beings in the petri dish have not developed personalities, etc. They have no one that is emotionally attached to them. It does not make them less persons, but it does give a reason to save the five year old.
I had much more attachment to my then three year old son than my second son before he was born. It is a natural human inclination. That changed once my second was born, but none of that made my second any less of a person than the first.
What's your reasoning "(scientifically)" that a human being/person comes into existence at conception?
Because I see no evidence to the contrary. I see no reason to separate the two. The moment of conception is a definite scientific point at which a change occurs.
You propose a process in which an embryo develops into a person, but again I'm not sure how that is more scientific than conception. You keep insinuating that because I'm a Christian that ends the discussion.
I keep repeating this, but you keep ignoring it. I've yet to defend anything with my Christianity.
Here's my question – is the moment of conception a scientific point? If so, what prevents that moment from being the precise point at which personhood begins? Also, how do you define personhood?
For me, I don't distinguish between personhood and human being. You draw a distinction – please explain why?
Also, I notice that you failed to answer how your version of morality or personhood allows you to criticize Singer's ethics? From your perspective, a process of personhood, what makes Singer's decision to extend the process out further wrong – both morally and scientifically?
Dude, are you going to address the big post or just keep on with these little side tracks?
"Could you please show me where I said the Christian God made human beings a person at conception?"
Oh, okay. So, you don't believe that?
"If you choose to save a family member over five strangers does that make your family member a person and the others not?"
It shows that you think your family member is more important than the other 5 people.
"The moment of conception is a definite scientific point at which a change occurs."
And, you think that change is "personhood." Why?
"I've yet to defend anything with my Christianity."
And, scientifically. I predicted you couldn't answer my question and you didn't disappoint.
"Here's my question…"
You still need to address the points I raised in my post above, Aaron. Why should I answer anything of yours when you just ignore the points I made last week.
"From your perspective, a process of personhood, what makes Singer's decision to extend the process out further wrong – both morally and scientifically?"
I don't know who this Singer is but I'm happy to defend my own arguments here, not someone else's. [shrug] From what you said. Singer seems to believe in viability. I don't subscribe to that for the same reasons you cited earlier.
"For me, I don't distinguish between personhood and human being."
That's not true. You think that the little girl is more important than 5 blastocyts like a family member is more important than 5 strangers. I can understand why you might think a family member is more important than 5 strangers but what distinction are you making between the little girl and the 5 blastocysts that you'd chose her over the them? Why is she more important?
"You draw a distinction – please explain why?"
I think it's the same distinction that you draw. I'll explain after you give me some straight answers.
Dude, are you going to address the big post or just keep on with these little side tracks?
I keep trying to address what I believe to be your main point – how do I scientifically define personhood? I have repeatedly said, I define it as the moment one becomes a human being, they are a human person. That is a precise moment that can be evaluated and investigated scientifically.
Oh, okay. So, you don't believe that?
Nice logical fallacy. Simply because I'm a Christian, I must be wrong on this issue. That doesn't address anything, but is simply a red herring.
I never said that God did or did not endow personhood at any moment. I answered your request for a discussion in your realm.
And, you think that change is "personhood." Why?
I didn't specify general "change" as personhood. I said the scientific change that takes place at the moment of conception – the moment a human being begins.
Again, I see no reason, scientifically, morally or any other, to separate personhood from human being. You do, so please explain.
I predicted you couldn't answer my question and you didn't disappoint.
Simply because I don't answer from your worldview. That's why I said you ask others to explain things outside of their influences, but you refuse to step outside of yours.
My answers do not coincide with your naturalism and view of human life/personhood, so they aren't "scientific." Nothing you have said in this discussion demonstrates why a "process" is more scientific than a "moment" except your prejudice against any argument that you believe has roots in a Christian value system, even if it is not given as a basis for the argument.
You will not accept anything I saw because of my faith and your view of the relationship between faith and science. To you (and others) faith is an impediment to the expansion and development of science. Therefore, any answer that you deem as originating from or being influence by faith is automatically disqualified.
I don't know who this Singer is but I'm happy to defend my own arguments here, not someone else's.
You've never heard of Princeton ethicist Peter Singer? But regardless, the point there is lost, so we'll continue with other more obvious veins of discussion.
Why is she more important?
I finally did some Googling on that and found out how prevalent the scenario is on the pro-ESCR and pro-choice side. I'm still amazed at how any one thinks this is such a pivotal question/strategy.
If you had to choose would you save the President of the United States or Rush Limbaugh? ;) Does that make Limbaugh less of a person than Pres. Obama based on your choice? Or if the matter was a 35-year-old versus a 5-year-old? There is no determination on the value of a person because they were chosen out of the fire.
What if you knew that one of the blastocysts would be implanted, grow up and be the greatest President the US ever had, end all war, implement all the dream liberal policies, etc.? Would you at least hesitate? :)
I actually already responded and answered the question in my last comment – it boils down to emotional attachment. I gave an example of my two boys, when one was 3 and the other was still in the womb. I had much more of an attachment to our then 3-year-old, but that didn't diminish the personhood of our unborn son (who is now 3).
“I keep trying to address what I believe to be your main point…”
Here are the points you dropped…
1. Krauthammer?
2. Freezing blastocyts disrespectful?
3. You said that distinct DNA makes a person. Yet, one can have the exact DNA as the owner and still be a person. True? False?
5. Both “personhood” and adulthood are processes, right?
6. You said, “We can’t know exactly when, except to know that it is exactly NOT at conception. Huh?” I replied, “You know that it’s not exactly at birth, huh? Seeker knows it’s not exactly at conception and not exactly at birth, huh?”
7. The evangelical claim is that “personhood” is not a process. They claim a blastocyst is a person at conception. The latter seems accessible only to certain Christians (noted).
8. Human life does not begin at conception. Your sperm, and mine, is human. It’s definitely not canine. It’s definitely alive. It’s not dead. It’s not inanimate. So, it’s human life. No one cares about sperm though.
9. “Why would you not start personhood at that moment? It is a scientifically verifiable time, as opposed to some vague “between this point and this point.” Why not start adulthood at exactly 18 years old? It is a scientifically verifiable time, as opposed to some vague time between 16 and 19? The reason is there is no way to pinpoint exactly when children grow up.
10. When asked to provide scientific evidence for “personhood” at conception, you can’t. You just say I’m being unfair for asking you.
11. “If a Muslim president comes into office and starts making religious laws based upon Muslim religion, shouldn’t he be able to justify those laws with a non-religious, reasonable basis? If his Muslim law is to be obeyed by all, should people at least be able to understand WHY they should obey it?”
12. “I can’t fathom why anyone would support the destruction of embryos or abortion.” I don’t know anyone who does. They simply think that personal choice and curing diseases and alleviating suffering are more important. It’s a difference in priorities.
13. It’s not unfair to ask you to explain your beliefs in such a way that I, and others who don’t share your world view, can understand. The language of logic and reason should not be so foreign to you that you can’t even speak to me about “personhood”. Reason and logic is something we both share. When someone tells me that they can’t speak or explain an idea or belief they hold in a reasonable manner, I dismiss that person as not being serious.
14. The actual question was, “Aaron, how do YOU scientifically define a person?” I don’t see how scientifically, distinct genes from parents makes a person. A clone of you would be a person, right? Yet, his his genes would not be distinct from yours. And, even if the genes are different, is that all that makes a person a person? There is a difference between being human (sperm/eggs/skin cells) and being a person.
15. “What if there is another measurement that we cannot make yet?” Like what?
“I answered your request for a discussion in your realm.”
Actually, No. You did not. It’s number #14. You went on about distinct genes. i showed you that’s not necessarily true then you dropped the ball.
“Oh, okay. So, you don’t believe that? Nice logical fallacy.”
Ok, and this is just nuts. How do you get a logical fallacy from a my asking you what you believe? You can’t :P
“I said the scientific change that takes place at the moment of conception – the moment a human being begins.”
This is my point in #8. You say personhood begins at conception. Why? What about conception makes it a person to you?
“Simply because I don’t answer from your worldview. That’s why I said you ask others to explain things outside of their influences, but you refuse to step outside of yours.”
My points in #11 and #13 address this.
“You will not accept anything I saw because of my faith and your view of the relationship between faith and science.”
#11. Also, you prove my point in #7. Why do only you and certain Christians share the latter view?
“…any answer that you deem as originating from or being influence by faith is automatically disqualified.”
If the answer is you just believe what that personhood begins at conception but you can’t provide any reasons for holding that belief, then just say so. You can also say God did it. At least that will put a stop to your prevarications.
“You’ve never heard of Princeton ethicist Peter Singer?”
Never. You make him sound like a favorite whipping boy for pro-lifers though. Easily attacked.
“If you had to choose would you save the President of the United States or Rush Limbaugh?”
The scenario is 1 nondescript life vs. 5. You know nothing about the girl or the blastocysts. You chose to save 1 life over 5 lives. What distinction are you making between the little girl and the 5 blastocysts that you’d chose her over the them? Why is she more important? I’d choose Obama because I’m making a distinction that Obama’s life is more important to save than Rush Limbaugh’s. Why do you choose a girl you know nothing about over the 5 blastocyts. Why is she more important to you than the 5 “people” in the petri dish?
“There is no determination on the value of a person because they were chosen out of the fire.”
Then why do you place greater value on the girl’s life instead of the 5 blastocysts? How did you determine that you should save her instead of the 5?
“I’m still amazed at how any one thinks this is such a pivotal question/strategy.”
LOL! I’m not surprised. It’s a variation on the famous trolley dilemma. I linked to a 45 minute show about it in one of the “where does morality come from posts.” Remember?
“…it boils down to emotional attachment.”
Good! We might be getting somewhere. Now, why are you more emotionally attached to the little girl and not the 5 blastocysts? What about her, what qualities make you more emotionally attached to her? What qualities about the 5 blastocysts make it harder to be emotionally attached to them? Remember, you don’t know anything about either the girl or the blastocyts. They could be anyone.
Good night, Cin. I do have a life outside this blog. The conversation shifts and I follow it. I’ll try to get to all those, but that’s a lot of info and little amount of time – work, school, kids, wife and I do like to have a bit of entertainment in my life (the new Bond movie is waiting on me, along with last weeks episode of Dollhouse on Hulu). But here we go.
1. I think he makes a valid criticism as someone on a similar side as Obama. You can agree with someone on an issue, but disagree with their methodology for reaching their conclusion. I’ve read numerous debates online where people agree on an issue, but disagree with the argumentation used. I saw several with the burning building girl vs. petri dish issue.
2. My point was not the freezing, but the using afterwards. But I do think it is disrespectful for human life to simply freeze mass amounts of them with no designs on allowing them to develop.
3. Cloning is a separate issue, that is on it’s own. I’d prefer to stick with the issue at hand. Sure, I can go there, but this discussion is long enough as it is. Even with a clone, there is a moment when they become human life. The standard issue for all human beings so far is the existence of distinct DNA, let’s not cloud the issue.
5 (4?) I do not believe personhood to be a process. I think I have made that clear. I do not separate personhood from human being.
6. You say it is a process, yet you have markers for that process. I say it is a fixed time. My point is that you say it is a process that is in some regards undefined, yet you claim to know that it could not start at conception.
7. You assume that only Christians place personhood at conception. That is your misunderstanding. As I said there are numerous people of differing faiths and non-faiths who do not delineate between human being and person. It does not take a believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind to see no reason to draw a distinction between a human being and a person.
8. If I used human life in some discussions that was a semantic mistake. There are, of course, parts of us cells that are “human life,” but are not human beings. The sperm is human life, but not a human life. Agreed? Once it combines with the egg, it becomes a human being. Agreed?
9. This goes back to our differing definitions of personhood. I see no comparison to adulthood, since I don’t view personhood as a process.
10. I’m not sure what exactly you want to say. When we are discussing the idea of “personhood.” It is some ways a metaphysical issue. Scientifically, I see no reason to separate the idea of human being with a person. That’s what I keep coming back to. You ask me for evidence, but if there is evidence for a human being, there is evidence for personhood.
If (in my view) personhood = human beings, then evidence for one is evidence for the other. And as I continue to say, I see no reason to draw a distinction between the two.
11. These are two separate issues. We all do share logic and reason, but even those are influenced by our worldviews – Islam, Christianity, Natrualism, etc. Much of what you ask me to do in these discussions is to either explain my perspective from your worldview or you discount my statements because they do not line up with your worldview (ie they come from mine).
12. We will leave this as be, there are separate priorities. I do not hold to a utilitarian view of life.
13. This goes back to 11. You could not explain to me in any way that I would understand why you would choose to value “choice” over the life of an unborn baby. As I said, I cannot fathom that because our worldviews are so different. Does that mean I can treat you as unserious?
We come at these ideas and concepts from totally opposite views. Even appealing to reason and logic are going to be difficult because we view things so differently. It doesn’t make either one of us unable to explain or use logic, it simply means that we have to work extremely hard to communicate to one another. I admit that I am not as skilled as I should be in communicating across worldview lines.
14. This is a restating of several previous questions. There is a difference between human life as you call it – cells, sperm, egg. etc. and a human being. If something transitions from human life to human being, it becomes a human person.
15. As I said, it would be one that we cannot measure or know about now. This may never be a reality, but in my view it is the height of arrogance to think that we have advanced to the point where we believe we can measure everything about humans. It is merely leaving the door open for future possibilities. If you can do that with the possible benefits of ESCR, I can do that here.
Okay, now let me try to move on.
1. I think I have answered that some how. You may not accept the answer, but I did answer it.
2. It is a logical fallacy to assume that my position on this matter is false simply because I am a Christian. Again, I have made no appeal to my faith in this discussion, yet you keep bringing it up as a knock down to my position.
There are huge theological issues with personhood, soul, etc., but I have not discussed those here, so I’m not sure of what value they would be in this context.
3. Hopefully this is the last time I have to rehash this, conception is the moment a human being begins. I draw no distinction between human beings and human persons. Conception is the moment a person begins, is because that is the moment human beings begin.
4. I think I answered this already
5. I keep saying that it is not just Christians that hold this view. Are you just ignoring that?
6. I have given you the answer repeatedly. I see no reason to draw a distinction between human beings and human persons. I pin personhood on the scientific moment of conception which is the moment human beings begin.
7. Again, I’ve chosen to drop Singer to move on to more specific issues.
8. You didn’t answer my question about the personhood of Limbaugh. Does it make him less of a person because you didn’t choose him? You also didn’t answer my question about the blastocyst that you knew would become the greatest liberal President in our history.
9-11. As with the trolley argument, nothing of the decision determines the value of the person. Saving one or not saving the others does not mean that any of them are less of a person. At the most it speaks of something the rescuer values.
As to the “remember?” – I’ll be honest. We have tons of discussions here on so many topics. You have linked to so many videos. I don’t remember them all, so being honest – no, I do not remember that video.
Philosophically, I still see no value this question in trying to determine the value of the rescued, it speaks more to the values of the rescuer.
As to the emotional attachment, I already explained that in terms of my two sons. It has to do with appearance. The choice would be similar between a cute little girl and a person who is healthy but appears disfigured. That does not mean the disfigured person is less of a person, but merely that we have more emotional attachment (through appearance and similarity) with the little girl.
You also have the issue of viability. That does not determine personhood, as I think we both agree. But it would influence hypothetical decisions such as these. In order to continue their life, the human beings in the petri dish are going to face a lot more difficulties than the little girl. This would be similar to an issue of saving a healthy person or a sick one. The sickness does not make the person less of a person, but would influence the choice.
Simply because the little girl is more “attractive” and similar to me, does not mean the human beings in the petri dish are not people.
You view humans in the womb as persons at some point, do you save them over the little girl? Does your choice mean you consider the other to be less of a person(s)?
I hope that answers all of the questions and that we can simplify this discussion as we move forward.
1. Krauthammer has no dog in this fight though. He is morally un-serious about ESCR yet pretends moral outrage. He's just throwing stones at Obama, that's all.
2. "I do think it is disrespectful for human life to simply freeze mass amounts of them with no designs on allowing them to develop."
How is freezing disrespectful? Don't we disrespect blastocyts more when we throw them in the trash? I don't think freezing blastocyts is disrespectful to them. It's not as if we are going to hurt their feelings. Anyway, I think you'll agree with me that it's good that we disrespect blastocyts by freezing them because if we didn't, those microscopic "people" would end up in the trash can. Basically, you agree with me that in this case, disrespecting "people" is a good thing. Freeze <= => Trash?
3. "Even with a clone, there is a moment when they become human life."
What moment is that? Conception you say? Conceiving a clone? You said before, when the genes are different from the parents is when personhood scientifically starts. Well, that's not the case with clones, is it? :)
(5)4. "I do not separate personhood from human being."
That's simply not true. You choose to save the girl instead of 5 blastocysts because she is a person while the blastocyss are not. The blastocyts are definitely human though. They are not canine, or feline, etc.
6. "My point is that you say it is a process that is in some regards undefined, yet you claim to know that it could not start at conception."
Adulthood is a process that is in some regards undefined. I claim to know that adulthood does not start at age three and does not start at age 65. Also, Seeker claims to know that personhood does not start at conception either. His C-Ral site puts it a few weeks after. Maybe he can get through to you about this concept better than I can.
7. Skip
8. The sperm is human life, but not a human life. Agreed? Once it combines with the egg, it becomes a human being. Agreed?
Hell no. Why does a sperm need to combine with an egg to be a human being from your perspective? Why not before? Why is a skin cell not a human life from your perspective?
9. "9. This goes back to our differing definitions of personhood. I see no comparison to adulthood, since I don't view personhood as a process."
Explain.
10. "When we are discussing the idea of "personhood." It is some ways a metaphysical issue."
It's entirely a metaphysical/philosophical issue. There is no way to point to a moment and say, ah ha! That's a person! When does an acorn stop being an acorn and become a tree? Is there a specific point? No, there is not, it's a process.
11. "We all do share logic and reason, but even those are influenced by our worldviews – Islam, Christianity, Natrualism"
Nope. Logic and reason has no bias. Logic has a structure and rules that are common throughout all cultures and world views. Modus ponens, for example.
12. skip
13. "You could not explain to me in any way that I would understand why you would choose to value "choice" over the life of an unborn baby."
In my view, blastocysts does not equal unborn baby. Blastocysts are little more than sperm and equal in value to the skin cells on your nose. You know that the skin cells on your knows can one day become a person as well, right? Now you understand why I can value choice very easily?
14. "There is a difference between human life as you call it – cells, sperm, egg. etc. and a human being."
You say this but you don't explain what the difference is between these things and a blastocyst. If you are talking about a little girl, there is a clear difference but sperm and eggs, not so much. We established that it's not a difference in genes from the parents since a clone of you is still as person. The clone of a dog does not have to be distinct for the clone to be considered a dog.
15. It sounds like you have no idea about what you meant to say when you suggested it in the first place.
"It has to do with appearance. The choice would be similar between a cute little girl and a person who is healthy but appears disfigured."
Nope. You don't remember things. Actually, it would be a cute little girl vs. 5 healthy but disfigured people. You choose to save the girl over 5 other people (blastocyts), though disfigured. So, in essence, you've chosen to save 1 life over 5 others because she is cute. That's your reasoning?!?! Is that moral? I think if there's a Hell, that's where you'd go if you did that.
So much for the attempt to lighten the mood some, so be it. T
his debate is degrading fairly rapidly. I keep restating my opinion and my reasons for such, you keep restating your own and saying mine aren’t good enough. I feel like you are ignoring most of my points in order to attempt to get me to walk into a semantic trap, where you can say, “Aha! Hypocrite!”
1. We keep restating the same opinion on Krauthammer, pointless
2. If you are asking is it better to freeze than to throw in the trash? Then yes, obviously that is the case. However, from my perspective (since that is what I’m speaking from) the best case scenario is to not freeze extra ones to start with. It’s a matter of bad (trash) reluctantly acceptable (freeze) best (create only what is needed).
3.
As I already said, cloning is a separate issue that is much more complicated and is one we are not really discussing since it is not a real issue yet. ESCR is the subject we are talking about and the personhood of those involved in it.
4. You choose to save the girl instead of 5 blastocysts because she is a person while the blastocyss are not.
Could you please remind me where it was I said that? I’m pretty sure in this entire conversation I have never said that. You are repeating your own opinion as mine, giving your own justification for mine.
I keep saying this over and over again, the choice in a hypothetical fire tells us nothing about the personhood of the people involved. Your choice of saving one over another does not diminish the personhood of those not chosen.
I’ve tried to use my two sons to demonstrate the issue. I had more emotional attachment to my oldest son when he was outside of the womb versus my youngest when he was in the womb. Even the moment before my youngest was born, I had more emotional attachment to my oldest.
We both agree that my youngest (just prior to birth) is a person, yet prior to birth I would have chosen my oldest (as disgusting as that makes me feel now to say that, watching my youngest play right now).
It would probably be similar to a person who has a miscarriage versus someone who loses a 5 year old. Many mourn the child they lost due to miscarriage, but most do not do it as they would a five-year-old who dies. None of that speaks to personhood, but rather emotional attachment.
I also referenced the issue of viability, which, as we both state, does not speak to the personhood of a human being, but it would influence someone making a hypothetical, split-second decision to save a five-year-old versus blastocysts in a petri dish, who are not guaranteed much of anything.
6. I’m not Daniel. Also, I think he does place a definite point on personhood – brainwaves. That is a bit different than an undefined process. But again, you can have that discussion with him.
8. Why does a sperm need to combine with an egg to be a human being from your perspective? Why not before? Why is a skin cell not a human life from your perspective?
You misuse the terms human being and human life. There is a difference that I have repeatedly referenced in this discussion. Hair and skin cells are “human life,” but they are not a human being.
I understand that there is a philosophical question of the metaphysical reality of “personhood,” but I have no idea how there is any question to the scientific beginning of a human being. Where would you place that?
Again, I say that the metaphysical issue of personhood should be tied to the scientific reality of a human being. I see no reason to separate the two. You have said the two are separate so where would you place the scientific beginning of a human being. Again, so we are clear, we are NOT talking about human life. We are discussing a human being – when does that begin?
(I’m skipping some because it seems the debate on those issues has stalled, if there is anything that I need to answer, please point those out to me. I do not intend to leave out anything relevant.)
11. Logic and reason has no bias. Agreed, but you didn’t read my point. I said that our worldview influences those. Things seem more logical or rational depending on the way we view the basic issues of life. Two people can see an issue as being both rational and irrational depending on their worldview.
13. Now you understand why I can value choice very easily? Nope. It is still unfathomable to me to see it is as desirable to use human beings (above human life, separate issue again) as simply something to be used to benefit other human beings.
14. You say this but you don’t explain what the difference is between these things and a blastocyst.
Again, you keep bringing in cloning to confuse the issue. When considering the only way in which we have human beings today – an egg and a sperm join together to make a distinct human being. Everything about that is different from the two parents. Skin cells, etc. do not share that.
Again, cloning is a separate issue that raises it’s own set of questions, but is not pertinent to our ESCR discussion. Right now, the embryos used are created the same way you and I were – sperm from our father, egg from our mother. We are discussing whether they (or us at that stage) are recognized as a person (and I suppose as a human being, as well – though I still find that shocking.)
You bring up a dog as a analogy. As a bit of a tangent – what about animal testing? Since you see no problem in testing on and using human beings that you do not view as persons, do you share the same view toward animals that can never achieve the status of personhood?
15. No, I knew and know what I meant to say. I still think it is a valid point, but it is apparently not beneficial to our conversation here, so I dropped it.
If you noticed, I’ve tried to do that – drop lines of thinking that have not led anywhere on this subject.
It was an analogy, not a one to one correspondence. Also, from where do you draw the morality by which to judge my actions, if I did make that choice? If I value cuteness over numbers, what type of morality can you appeal to that would cause me to see that I would be morally wrong?
Okay, now to my questions that you have not answered yet.
Or if the matter was a 35-year-old (or a 85-year-old) versus a 5-year-old? … What if you knew that one of the blastocysts would be implanted, grow up and be the greatest President (from your perspective) the US ever had, end all war, implement all the dream liberal policies, etc.? Would you at least hesitate?
What if that blastocyst would grow up and find the cure for cancer, saving millions of lives, would you be immoral for saving the little girl instead of one who would save countless of other lives?
You view humans in the womb as persons at some point, do you save two of them over the little girl? Does your choice mean you consider the other to be less of a person(s)?
“We keep restating the same opinion on Krauthammer”
It’s a fact that he has no dog in the ESCR fight. So, he’s just throwing stones at Obama. He is the one who is “morally unserious” about ESCR.
“…is it better to freeze than to throw in the trash?”
Freezing is not disrespectful. No one’s feelings are hurt.
“cloning is a separate issue”
It’s essential to any “personhood” discussion. You said that a person has distinct DNA from the parents. Well, this proves you wrong since a clone has identical DNA and is still a human being. When does a clone become a person? That’s very pertinent in this discussion about ESCR since the real debate about ESCR centers on personhood. So, it’s not really a separate issue at all.
“Could you please remind me where it was I said that? [You choose to save the girl instead of 5 blastocysts because she is a person while the blastocyss are not.]”
If you believed that the 5 blastocysts were people you would have chosen them. But you don’t really believe that. That’s why you chose to save the real person.
“I keep saying this over and over again, the choice in a hypothetical fire tells us nothing about the personhood of the people involved.”
I keep responding, It tells us what YOU THINK about personhood where the rubber meets the road.
“I had more emotional attachment to my oldest son when he was outside of the womb versus my youngest when he was in the womb. Even the moment before my youngest was born, I had more emotional attachment to my oldest.”
Like I said before, the scenario is 1 life vs. 5. You choose to save 1 over 5. Young son vs. older son is irrelevant see, because it’s 1 vs. 1 based on who you favor the most. Remember, nondescript! You don’t know anything about the girl or blastocysts. They could be anyone.
“…[viability] would influence someone making a hypothetical, split-second decision to save a five-year-old versus blastocysts in a petri dish, who are not guaranteed much of anything.”
Agreed.
“I’m not Daniel. Also, I think he does place a definite point on personhood – brainwaves.”
Nope, he can’t nail down exactly when brainwaves start. Brainwaves start earlier in some fetuses than others. He can’t nail down an exact time frame either although his is narrower and earlier than mine. Anyway, he agrees with me in that personhood does not begin at the point of conception. Since you disagree, maybe you two should have that discussion. I’m more in agreement with Daniel about personhood than you are. I think that’s about the only topic that we have common ground in. Everything else we speak about goes to Hell.
“Hair and skin cells are “human life,” but they are not a human being.”
They have potential to be human beings just as blastocysts do. Neither are human beings yet though. No brain waves, etc.
“You have said the two are separate so where would you place the scientific beginning of a human being.”
I think there is no way to scientifically tell. It’s like determining the scientific beginning of an adult. One can say puberty but, not only does that vary from person to person but that says nothing about emotional maturity which is the real hallmark of adulthood. There is no scientific way to state that people become adults at exactly 18. Adulthood is a process. Children develop into adults. Same thing with personhood. Blastocysts develop into babies, babies into children, children into adults. Where would you place the beginning of a tree from an acorn?
“Things seem more logical or rational depending on the way we view the basic issues of life. Two people can see an issue as being both rational and irrational depending on their worldview.”
That’s true. But that’s not what I’m arguing. “If a Muslim president comes into office and starts making religious laws based upon Muslim religion, shouldn’t he be able to justify those laws with a non-religious, reasonable basis? If his Muslim law is to be obeyed by all, should people at least be able to understand WHY they should obey it?” Say the law is, prohibition. One justification he can provide is that Allah frown upon alcohol. Another is Jesus frowns upon alcohol. Another justification is alcohol kills many people. To Muslims, the first might be seen as reasonable. To Christians, the second might be seen as reasonable. But the third, both Muslims and Christians might see that as reasonable.
“Nope. It is still unfathomable to me to see it is as desirable to use human beings (above human life, separate issue again) as simply something to be used to benefit other human beings.”
That’s unfathomable to me as well. However, blastocysts are a different matter since they are not human beings yet. Seen from that perspective, it’s completely rational.
“Again, you keep bringing in cloning to confuse the issue.”
See above. Cloning is central.
“…an egg and a sperm join together to make a distinct human being. Everything about that is different from the two parents. Skin cells, etc. do not share that.”
A clone of you would be a distinct human being. It doesn’t matter if skin cells don’t share genes from both parents. Sharing genes does not a person make.
“As a bit of a tangent – what about animal testing? Since you see no problem in testing on and using human beings that you do not view as persons, do you share the same view toward animals that can never achieve the status of personhood?”
I see a huge problem with experimenting and testing on human beings. But, blastocysts are as much people as the skin on your nose. I have no problem with conducting tests with skin from your nose even though you could make a person out of that. As far as animals go, I guess it depends on the animal. The more advanced they are or the more they can suffer the more qualms I have about it. A chimp has more moral significance than a rat. I think though that anyone who eats meat should not protest too much lest they be called a hypocrite. I used to like discussing this with Stewart. Remember him?
“Also, from where do you draw the morality by which to judge my actions, if I did make that choice?”
Ah! I love morality questions. Christians mistakenly think morality comes from their god. It’s a quaint belief. So, they ask non-believers, if you don’t believe in my god then where do you get morality from? Why don’t you go running around killing everyone? ROFL! Atheists think gods are highly improbable. If there is no god, Christians are just fooling themselves about morality. Christians really get their morality from culture and their own beliefs. Thats where they get their god from too, like all the other religions. So, does that answer you? I draw morality from where everyone else gets it. A combination of genetics, empathy and reason. We all sit in judgment of each other based upon that. If you did make that choice, I wouldn’t be alone in condemning you; letting a little girl die screaming in agony to save a pertri dish with microscopic cells in it. You’d rightly be thrown into the insane asylum.
“Or if the matter was a 35-year-old (or a 85-year-old) versus a 5-year-old?”
I’d choose the 5 year old over the 85 year old because the 5 year old is younger. You can’t use this with the lab fire scenario because the 5 blastocysts younger than the girl.
“Would you at least hesitate?”
In both scenarios I’d probably save the blastocyst. Not because of their intrinsic value as people with “personhood” but because of what they will do. Make the analogy even more clear cut. If I knew the girl would become another Hitler, I’d choose the blastocyst. Remember though, the lab fire scenario is purposefully structured so that the subjects are NON-DESCRIPT. That way the decision is based upon the “personhood” of the subject and not on who that person is.
“You view humans in the womb as persons at some point, do you save two of them over the little girl?”
No. Not until they can be recognized as people, and that’s a gray area. There is a gray area between acorn and tree as well. If I knew that a seed would grow to be the tree that grew the apple that inspired Isaac Newton would I save that apple seed over an entire orchard? Heck ya! But that decision is based upon the value of that scenario and not the intrinsic values of apple trees. If I had to choose between saving 5 nondescript seeds and an apple tree, I’d choose the tree. :)
Freezing is not disrespectful. No one’s feelings are hurt.
So to be disrespectful, feelings must be hurt?
You said that a person has distinct DNA from the parents. Well, this proves you wrong since a clone has identical DNA and is still a human being. When does a clone become a person? That’s very pertinent in this discussion about ESCR since the real debate about ESCR centers on personhood.
Right now at this moment, in the glorious land of federal government funded ESCR, what type of embryos are being used? Are any of them cloned? If not, then we are dealing with yet another hypothetical situation. I would prefer to keep that down to one scenario at a time.
Certainly the idea and issue of cloning has to do with personhood, but it does not tell me whether a non-cloned embryo is a person or not. They are a separate issue, but I will be appropriating your logic for this argument in a minute so thanks for that.
For my honest opinion of cloning, here it is. I hope we never go through with it. It is dangerous and morally suspect. If we ever did produce human clones, I would have no idea where to place the point of personhood because I don’t know enough about the science involved to make that type of judgment. In my layman’s guess I would say that the point the cloned cell became like a human being at conception. Please, don’t try to use my honesty as a semantic trap as I speak out of honest semi-ignorance. But I do want to try to be open and give you some type of answer to your question.
If you believed that the 5 blastocysts were people you would have chosen them. But you don’t really believe that. That’s why you chose to save the real person.
I didn’t know you suddenly converted to a supernaturalist. All of a sudden you seem to believe that you have the ability to read my mind! ;)
Seriously, Cin, you do not know my motivations. You know my highly nuanced answer to a hypothetical situation. That’s all. That tells you absolutely nothing about the personhood of anyone in the hypothetical situation, much less the real world.
But as I said, now I want to use your logic. Cloning is the exception you point to as disprove of my idea of personhood. You have been fond of saying, “We’ve already established …” So I would say that we have already established that there are several instances where you would choose one person over five or would you would choose a blastocyst over someone you consider to be a person. It seems to me that our hypothetical situations have not gotten us what we wanted.
But honestly, whatever I say is not going to change your mind and it’s not going to change mine on this hypothetical anyway. I can repeat continually that it has no bearing on where I place personhood. You will continue to believe that it really does. Where is that going to get us?
Where would you place the beginning of a tree from an acorn?
Bit of a different question, as trees don’t conceive as humans do. A better analogy would be where would you place the beginning of a dog and I would say at the point the sperm and egg combine to form a new dog.
Honestly, I would think the beginning of a human being would be much easier to nail down that personhood. I have seriously never heard anyone who would not agree that a human being begins at conception. I know people have disagreements over the issue of personhood, but I see no other time point or period where the beginning of a human being could be.
One justification he can provide is that Allah frown upon alcohol.
I understand your point there, I’m just not sure how it applies here – for two reasons. I have not yet applied to the Bible or any type of Christian teaching on the subject. Any time it has been brought up it is by you. That is completely different from a Muslim saying Allah hates alcohol.
Secondly, I have repeatedly said that the position of personhood (and especially human beings) beginning at conception is not a strictly Christian position. It is held by many of differing faiths and those of no faith. How does that make it only applicable to Christians? There’s where I’m confused about your contention.
A clone of you would be a distinct human being. It doesn’t matter if skin cells don’t share genes from both parents. Sharing genes does not a person make.
You keep falling back on clones as your failsafe escape plan, don’t you? ;)
But again, the only type of human beings and persons we know of currently are not clones. They were formed the good ol’ fashioned way: sperm and egg. In that way, when they combine they form something completely different. A scientific change takes place. I see no reason that it would not be classified as the beginning of a human being. As you are fond of saying, it’s not a dog being.
Christians mistakenly think morality comes from their god. It’s a quaint belief. So, they ask non-believers, if you don’t believe in my god then where do you get morality from? Why don’t you go running around killing everyone?
Um…if a Christian actually believed that they are a moron. That’s a really bad strawman of the actual developed Christian position.
It’s not that you must believe in God to avoid committing murder, it’s that humans have a shared sense of morality that goes beyond evolutionary science. It’s the idea that the morality must have come from somewhere, someone beyond us.
It’s not just a matter of instincts because we often encounter situations that pit two instincts against one another – something (embedded morality) must judge between the two in those instances.
But that’s not our discussion here, but is a bit odd that in one debate you claim to not want to play the morality police, yet in another you claim that a decision of mine would find me worthy of hell. Is that not a bit contradictory? What makes one case worthy of morality police?
That way the decision is based upon the “personhood” of the subject and not on who that person is.
But see again, you give allowances for exceptions to your rule – that’s my point the issue is not personhood of those involved.
You say it’s simply non-descript little girl and blastocysts, but as I said there is a huge emotional attachment with seeing a little girl. There is not the same as seeing the human beings in the petri dish. None of that makes them less of a person.
I’ve already demonstrated my consistency on this issue when discussing my two sons when one was born and the other not.
One can believe and accept that the human beings in a petri dish are persons, but still recognize that to not save the little girl would be more tragic.
You allowed for exemptions based on impact of the individual. I’m doing the same. The impact of losing the little girl would be much greater than those in the petri dish. The family of that little girl would mourn so deeply for her. That would not be the case for those in the petri dish, although, as I have said, people do often mourn miscarriages – all the more to my point.
So if you can make an exception for the potential results of the decision, which would cause a person to die, why can I not make the same difficult choice?
"So to be disrespectful, feelings must be hurt?"
Well, ya. Someone, directly or indirectly, has to feel slighted.
"For my honest opinion of cloning…"
We are not talking about whether or not to do cloning. I never brought that topic up. That's a separate issue. What I asked is, "When does a clone become a person?" That's pertinent to "personhood" and ESCR.
"I would say that the point the cloned cell became like a human being at conception."
The doner's conception?
"You know my highly nuanced answer to a hypothetical situation. That's all. That tells you absolutely nothing about the personhood of anyone in the hypothetical situation"
Your decision to save 1 person instead of 5 "persons" tells me what YOU THINK about personhood. It tells me where your priorities are.
"Bit of a different question, as trees don't conceive as humans do."
Um, actually, they get pollinated. Pollination = Fertilization in humans. So, if I follow you correctly, you think a tree is a tree at pollination?
"I have seriously never heard anyone who would not agree that a human being begins at conception."
Most people in the world don't think A human being/person begins at conception. Even Seeker doesn't believe this. This kind of rationale is generally relegated to certain Muslims and Christians. Most famously, Catholics.
"I have not yet applied to the Bible or any type of Christian teaching on the subject."
That's why I specifically did not mention you in this example. I'm not talking about you dude. In my example I used Christians and Muslims in a general sense. I didn't specify Aaron and Muslims.
"…the position of personhood (and especially human beings)"
Wait a minute, I thought you didn't differentiate between people and human beings yet you separated them here in parenthesis.
"…[personhood] beginning at conception is not a strictly Christian position."
It is from their religious standpoint. Individuals believe what they will for their own reasons. Some can articulate a reasonable explanation for their beliefs and some can't. They just believe it. If you can find an atheist who believes that personhood begins at conception, I'd love to hear his rational.
"They were formed the good ol' fashioned way: sperm and egg. In that way, when they combine they form something completely different. A scientific change takes place."
Let's use your analogy. You said, "A better analogy would be where would you place the beginning of a dog and I would say at the point the sperm and egg combine to form a new dog." You know though that the clone of a dog doesn't have distinct DNA yet it's still a dog. This absolutely contradicts what you said about forming something completely different as a scientific marker. It does not have to be completely different at all, does it? So, this reason doesn't pass muster. It seems to me you really have no reason to believe what you believe. Dogma seems to be your only explanation. Until you can clarify, I think that's the logical conclusion.
"It's the idea that the morality must have come from somewhere, someone beyond us."
Why must it?
"It's not just a matter of instincts…"
Which is why I also include reasoning on top of genetic empathy.
"But that's not our discussion here, but is a bit odd that in one debate you claim to not want to play the morality police, yet in another you claim that a decision of mine would find me worthy of hell. Is that not a bit contradictory? What makes one case worthy of morality police?"
This makes absolutely no sense. That I don't care if gays marry each other contradicts thinking that if you choose to save 1 person over 5 that you are an awful person?
"…there is a huge emotional attachment with seeing a little girl. There is not the same as seeing the human beings in the petri dish. None of that makes them less of a person."
Aaron, you feel a huge emotional attachment to the girl because you feel that she is a real person. You don't feel emotional attachment to the blastocysts in the petri dish because they haven't developed into persons yet. When they do, you will. That's why if the choice were saving 5 babies (6 months old) and saving a little girl, you'd (I think) save the 5 babies instead. Yet, you wouldn't save the 5 blastosyts who you equate with babies.
Cin, I'm not sure where we can go on this because you continual claim the power to read my mind and understand my motivations of a hypothetical situations. Further more, you assume that one complication/difference (cloning) debunks my entire argument, while maintaing that several complications/differences (relationship, potential benefits, emotional impact, etc.) do nothing to weaken your argument.
It's an impasse and unless you can convince me otherwise, I see no reason to continue. Earlier on I enjoyed the discussion, but the last few back-and-forths have been nothing but repetitions of earlier statements.
If you aren't willing to accept what I say at face value and instead seem determined to divine somehow the hidden meaning of my statements, I'm not sure what value there can be in continuing this discussion in this setting.
You did ask for info about non-Christians who would believe as I do:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/members.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8…
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/h…
Hope that helps and I hope we can move forward.
As someone who has been following this conversation with interest, I find Aaron's last rebuttal to be rather dissapointing on the whole. He seems to have thrown in the towel. Cineaste is obviously not a mindreader but it does seem that he is judging Aaron by his actions and not his words in the given situation.
Snarn,
I'm glad to you been interested in the conversation. However, I'm sorry I disappointed you with my reply. It is not throwing in the towel, but rather a statement of what I see as an impasse.
I have no problem with someone judging my actions versus my words. Unfortunately, they do not always line up. However that is not the case for this situation. For starters, there are no actual actions it is a hypothetical situation.
Second, the most that my hypothetical response to the hypothetical situation could indicate is that I value the little girl more than the blastocysts. That does not mean that I view one as a person and the others as not. I have already demonstrated that in various instances Cin (and anyone else) would rescue 1 vs. 5 and would rescue blastocysts vs. a little girl. Those would seem to indicate to me that the question is much more complicated that simply if you rescue the girl you must view the blastocysts as not persons.
If you or Cin could explain how exactly it demonstrates what you believe it to, I would be open for that (not saying I'm going to agree with it, but reasoning could be helpful). Unfortunately, both Cin and myself are very passionate on this issue and the temptation is to ratchet up the rhetoric and not the reasoning.
In response to this: ""I have seriously never heard anyone who would not agree that a human being begins at conception."
Cineaste said: "Most people in the world don't think A human being/person begins at conception. Even Seeker doesn't believe this. This kind of rationale is generally relegated to certain Muslims and Christians. Most famously, Catholics."
Is this true? Can you back it up with data?
Here is what we have observed from Aaron based upon his responses here:
1. He believes "personhood" begins at conception.
2. If you apply #1 to trees, he thinks a tree becomes a tree at the moment of pollination.
3. He says he doesn't differentiate between being a person and being a human being yet he distinguishes between them with paranthesis: "…the position of personhood (and especially human beings)"
4. He said, "They were formed the good ol' fashioned way: sperm and egg. In that way, when they combine they form something completely different. A scientific change takes place." He applies this to a dog, "A better analogy would be where would you place the beginning of a dog and I would say at the point the sperm and egg combine to form a new dog."
Yet, he knows that the clone of a dog doesn't have distinct DNA yet it's still a dog. His words contradict what he knows to be true.
5. He says that blastocysts are people with all the rights associated with being a person. Yet, when push comes to shove, he would rather save 1 nondescript life instead of 5. So, he obviously places greater value on the 1 life over the other 5. Given the chance, most people would save 5 lives and sacrifice one. Aaron, would save 1 life and sacrifice 5.
Judging by the actions Aaron said he'd take in this situation, he doesn't believe the 5 blastocysts are people. If he did, he'd do the right thing; save the 5 and sacrifice the 1. The wrong thing to do would be to save 1 and sacrifice 5. Yet, the wrong thing is exactly what he says he'd do. Remember, all parties involved are nondescript. He has no emotional attachment to any of them. He doesn't know anything about them. Now if the choice were between 5 non-descript babies and 1 nondescript girl, he'd save the 5 babies instead. Appaently, babies > blastocysts. So, what makes 5 babies more important to Aaron than 5 blastocysts? What makes 1 girl more important to Aaron than 5 blastocysts? Their obvious "personhood." Blastocysts just don't have it yet. Give them a few months to develop and watch Aaron change his tune about which one's he'd save from a fire.
1. Yes
2. Trees aren't persons or even an animal, so it is a bad analogy.
3. I don't differentiate between the two. I was just continuing to express my astonishment that you do not view the start of human beings at conception. I recognize the presence of a debate over the beginning of personhood, but I didn't realize there was one on when human beings started. It seems you don't draw a distinction either, you simply place teh beginning of both later on.
4. Again, cloning is a separate issue. When discussing ESCR all of them are sperm+egg, so the issue is much clearer in that instance. Simply because cloning is a bit "fuzzy" that does not change the matter for those that do not come into being that way.
With cloning, is there not a moment when it changes from being a simply human cell to being a developing human being? There must be some point, where it changes over. But regardless, it does not change the clear picture of all of us who are not formed that way.
5. Judging by the actions Aaron said he'd take in this situation, he doesn't believe the 5 blastocysts are people.
Is it always right to save based on numbers when people are involved? Isn't that a purely utilitarian view of human life?
But to use your new tactic in this discussion.
We know that Cin doesn't not believe blastocysts and embryos are human beings or persons. We know however, that he would choose to save one over what he considers to be persons if he knew that the non-person (in his opinion) would grow to be a person that he wanted to live (great liberal president). We also know that he would save the one versus the five, if there was a personal connection there. It seems that Cin is motivated by personal gain, if the one will benefit him or has a relationship with him, they will be saved. What we do not know is if Cin would save 5 fetuses just prior to delivery (whom he considers persons) over 1 little girl.
I have demonstrated on numerous occasions in this discussion that there are times and situations where you would choose to save one, while considering the other to be a person (or persons). That, in and of itself, should be enough to demonstrate that the choice does not rest completely on the potential saver's attitude of the personhood of the potential victims.
But this is ignored so you can hammer home the point you think you make. The scenario, which perhaps looking good on the surface, does not get you what you want. It is merely a gotcha hypothetical that fails to speak to the real question. In essence it moves the debate from where does personhood begin to how do you interpret the motivations that lie behind a hypothetical situation. Does not seem like a good transition to me. We've spent the last few days arguing over what my motivations are – that's a discussion I would think that I would have a bit of an inside advantage on determining.
Aaron,
I came late to this thread and I have not reviewed all that has come before and probably will not. Have you read Francis Beckwith's book Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice? I think he does a good job responding to the broad range of arguments for abortion including a brief look at the fire in the IVF clinic scenario.
Also a good web resource for defending life for those interested is the LTI blog here:
http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/
2. If you apply #1 to trees, he thinks a tree becomes a tree at the moment of pollination. (remember fertilization in animals = pollinition in trees) I had to explain the pollination thing to Aaron. He still doesn't get it, poor thing.
3. "It seems you don't draw a distinction either…" Terri Shaivo was once both a human being and a person. Once her brain melted and it was only her body left, she was no longer considered a person under the law. That's why they could unplug her.
4. Just a copy and paste since he doesn't address this at all…
Aaron says, "They were formed the good ol' fashioned way: sperm and egg. In that way, when they combine they form something completely different. A scientific change takes place." He applies this to a dog, "A better analogy would be where would you place the beginning of a dog and I would say at the point the sperm and egg combine to form a new dog."
Yet, he knows that the clone of a dog doesn't have distinct DNA yet it's still a dog. His words contradict what he knows to be true.
5. "But to use your new tactic in this discussion."
New? What the Heck? I've been repeating this over and over. Did it just now click? Holy crap!
"I have demonstrated on numerous occasions in this discussion that there are times and situations where you would choose to save one, while considering the other to be a person (or persons)."
None of the occasions you mention apply to this situation. Why? Because you know nothing about the girl or the blastocysts. They are all non-descript. You have no emotional attachments to them. You didn't address what was said in #5 at all.
P.S. I suggest you read William's link because it helps to know what you are talking about. Don't just keep issuing hollow reply after hollow reply.
Cin, when you want to actually discuss this let me know. Until then, continue to be satisfied with your condescending and arrogant replies. Just keep telling yourself that you can't be wrong and that everyone else has to be wrong and not just wrong illogical.
This further justifies and reiterates the reasons why I was going to end the discussion earlier. You want to complain about discussions turning negative and not accomplishing anything, yet you want to insult my intelligence because I dare to disagree with you.
Don't feign innocence. You know what was behind "He still doesn't get it, poor thing." etc. I'm not offended or hurt by your attitude, but it does reveal that you no longer want to add anything of seriousness to the discussion.
You'll read this, think I'm being emotional or whiny or something else because it can't be your fault. All you did was present logic and reason and my simple, little faith-based brain couldn't comprehend all your highly rational reasons. You are justified in being smug, after all you talking with an idiot who still believes in fairy tales – why even bother carrying on an adult conversation with him?
That's the ironic thing about the new atheism push. It is repeating the same mistakes as Christians have made – assuming arrogance and a sense of superiority will make up a failure to have real discussions with those with whom you disagree. It hasn't worked well for Christians, let me know how it works out for you guys.
What you've done in your last post is try to play the victim; the persecuted Christian card. You do this because you have no reasonable responses. People are not dumb. They know you haven't actually addressed the points I enumerated.
"…failure to have real discussions with those with whom you disagree."
Aaron, this is why I honestly think you are either not very intelligent or you are too proud to admit it when someone else makes a good point. I think it's the latter. For example, I said pollination is equivalent to fertilization. You couldn't even concede that. That makes you look bad. So, why in the world should anyone believe that it's possible to have a real discussion with someone who refuses to actually discuss the subject? You ignore over and over that the blastocysts and girl are nondescript. You just go on and on about your son, oblivious to what I just said; nondescript, they could be anyone, no emotional ties. It's hard to penetrate your pridefull attitude and get you to actually listen.
Let me show you. You could have said, you know Cineaste, that 5 blastocysts vs. 1 girl analogy is a really interesting way to look at this debate. I never thought of it that way and it made me ask questions as to why I'd actually save the life of one person over the life of 5.
You could have said, Cineaste your response to my point about a dog being a dog at conception is valid. Yes, since the clone of a dog is still a dog, with no point of conception, I guess that would mean that different DNA is not what makes a dog a dog. I see that the clone of a dog has identical DNA yet it's still a dog.
I tried to set an example for you by agreeing with your point about viability but you went on oblivious to this concession.
Ahh, the ever present “play the victim card.” Actually Cin if you had used the tone of your last post (minus the shot at me being either too unintelligent or too prideful to admit a point), I would never had posted my previous comment.
And actually I did recognize the agreement over viability:
I’ve never said your points were not thought provoking, I’ve simply disagreed with them as you have mine. I would be fine for a debate with no personal attacks, as well as no affirmation, but I guess that’s me.
You want affirmation that your point is well made. I want a debate free from name-calling, etc. I guess we all have our sticking point.
It seems a bit odd though that you would say I’m too prideful to acknowledge a point made by others. I will never argue my own pridefulness, I’ve written often about my struggles with pride, but I do think that is an area I have been decent at, especially here on 2or3.
So, if we can move forward with a renewed attitude of discussion, I will try to address the areas where I say I am too prideful, too unintelligent, or too afraid to answer. ;)
For example, I said pollination is equivalent to fertilization.
Scientifically, I would think that point could be conceded, but here is the distinction I want to point out. A tree is by definition no longer an acorn, etc. It is, to further connection the two ideas (pollination and fertilization), “born.”
If I completely concede your point on this, then I would be saying that a human being is only human once they are born. Since, I do not believe this to be the case (for all the reasons we have already discussed) I do not accept the analogy as being completely appropriate for the discussion.
You ignore over and over that the blastocysts and girl are nondescript. You just go on and on about your son, oblivious to what I just said; nondescript, they could be anyone, no emotional ties.
To be humble (if I can), perhaps I did not state my reasons for speaking of my sons, etc. The reason why I referenced them is that having a son(s) around the same age as a nondescript child would cause me to have emotional ties to that child.
That bleeds into the next reasoning behind my choice, emotional impact on the parents. There are some parents who would mourn if they lost the frozen embryos, some who would not, others who would never know. If someone lost a 5-year-old little girl the pain would be devastating. The potential impact would be much less on the parents of the embryos, as they have not had time to attach themselves to their child. Once a child is born, the connection becomes much deeper and the pain of loss much greater. I don’t think that speaks to personhood, but it is part of my explanation as to why I save the girl.
Lastly, the issue on which we had our early agreement – viability. While,\ we both agree it does not determine personhood, it would influence the decision over who to save. At best, the embryo has a 50/50 shot at developing fully (that is after they have been implanted, it’s much lower if you count all those who are never implanted). Again, that does not make them less of a person or a human being in my opinion, but it does cause more weight to be shifted toward the little girl.
I have already given all these reasons, but perhaps I did not do so clearly enough.
Yes, since the clone of a dog is still a dog, with no point of conception, I guess that would mean that different DNA is not what makes a dog a dog. I see that the clone of a dog has identical DNA yet it’s still a dog.
This is where you may have a point about my ignorance, so we’ll go with what I’ve got. Because (concession coming …) you do make a good point about the cloning issue, although I still maintain it is a separate discussion), I went and did some more research on it. I looked at Wikipedia (most reliable source EVAH!) and a government site called “Cloning Fact Sheet.”
Both contradicted (somewhat) your assertion that the cloned animal has identical DNA as the parent.
That goes to my point early about there being some point where even with a cloned animal, it ceases being a nose skin cell and starts being something different. Now, we can argue exactly when that point is, but again that is a different and much more difficult discussion.
My point in not focusing on the cloning issue too much is that it plays no role in the ESCR debate, since none of those embryos were created that way. It adds a variable that is not in our current policy debate. The embryos that will be destroyed to make ESCR possible will not be cloned embryos. They will be ones who are a combination of their parents’ sperm and egg. In my opinion, that makes the issue much clearer. Added cloning to the mix only serves to unnecessarily muddy the water, so to speak.
“I’ve never said your points were not thought provoking, I’ve simply disagreed with them as you have mine.”
You have not expressed any good reason to do so.
“You want affirmation that your point is well made.”
No. This is absolutely wrong and yet another thing you don’t seem to get. I want you to be able to concede a point (You try to do so later in your reply). That’s what people do in discussions. I know my points are excellent. I don’t need your affirmation for that.
“I want a debate free from name-calling, etc.”
No one called you anything. You bring your own baggage and I think you feel a bit intimidated in this discussion. Some advice that I think you should take to heart; It’s not what people call you that’s important, it’s what you answer to. And, judging by how you try to paint yourself as a victim, “my simple, little faith-based brain couldn’t comprehend all your highly rational reasons. You are justified in being smug, after all you talking with an idiot who still believes in fairy tales” what you see yourself as is really depressing. Poor thing indeed!
“…here is the distinction I want to point out. A tree is by definition no longer an acorn, etc. It is, to further connection the two ideas (pollination and fertilization), “born.” If I completely concede your point on this, then I would be saying that a human being is only human once they are born.”
The acorn = blastocyst. It’s got all the DNA it’s ever going have. Being born has no part in this.
“The reason why I referenced them is that having a son(s) around the same age as a nondescript child would cause me to have emotional ties to that child.”
Describe the emotional ties you’d have toward the girl. Remember, you know nothing about her. Why don’t you have these same emotional ties to the blastocysts. Remember, you see the blastocycts as unborn babies, right?
“If someone lost a 5-year-old little girl the pain would be devastating. The potential impact would be much less on the parents of the embryos, as they have not had time to attach themselves to their child.”
That’s because people get emotionally attached to other people. Since blastocysts are not people, it’s kind of tough to get as emotionally attached to them, isn’t it? Also consider that in the fire scenario, you’ve have the exact same amount of time to get attached to the blastocycts as you have to the girl: 1 second.
“While,\ we both agree it does not determine personhood, it would influence the decision over who to save.”
Then let’s take viability out of the equation. In your iteration of the fire scenario, you said that I knew the blastocysts were going to grow up into the President and people who cure cancer. Who would you save if you knew the blastocyts and the girl had equal viability? Would you let the little girl die screaming in a fire or would you leave the petri dish?
“My point in not focusing on the cloning issue too much is that it plays no role in the ESCR debate, since none of those embryos were created that way.”
Again though, cloning is pertinent to the discussion about personhood and how personhood relates to ESCR. The cloning example refutes your point about a dog needing DNA from both parents to be considered a dog since that makes it “something different.” “Only the clone’s chromosomal or nuclear DNA is the same as the donor.” That’s the DNA that matters. Genetic materials from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm are common to animal and human cell structure.
“…ceases being a nose skin cell and starts being something different. Now, we can argue exactly when that point is”
Aaron, if you can argue about when that point is then you are tacitly admitting that “personhood” is a process, that the point of “personhood” is an undefined grey area. This is exactly my point. You contend that there is a specific point in time that a person becomes a person. You are absolutely sure that point is conception. Yet, you have absolutely no clue when “personhood” occurs in clones. It’s “debatable.” Again, it’s not just the DNA that makes a person a person.
“Added cloning to the mix only serves to unnecessarily muddy the water, so to speak.”
Exactly! Your view is a very narrow and simple one. Conception then BANG, you get a person. This forces you to think about what “personhood” actually means. I can’t write off blastocycts as my children on my taxes. Why don’t they legally have the same rights as the little girl? Is there a good reason?
Wow, Cin. I try to be conciliatory and you come back with this? I thought maybe we could move forward with some sense of cooperation and exchange. You call me too prideful to admit a good point, yet somehow you see no irony is saying, “I know my points are excellent.” You want me to concede a point, but what you mean is you want me to agree with you.
You didn’t concede anything in our agreement with the viability point. You simply voiced a point on which we already agreed. How does that prove your magnanimity in the discussion?
Let’s try this one more time.
You have not expressed any good reason to do so.
I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder. You haven’t given me any good reasons to change my mind. Does that make us even?
Me? Prideful. You? Pot calling kettle black. :)
I wasn’t speaking of how I felt, I was speaking of how it seems you perceive those of faith and you continue, by your words, to support my thoughts on it.
You follow saying that no one called me anything with calling me a “poor thing?”
The acorn = blastocyst. It’s got all the DNA it’s ever going have. Being born has no part in this.
Very true, which would make it part of what ever scientific classification of trees it belongs to, but the terminology “tree” refers to something that is growing outside of the ground.
Human being (and person) is different from that. There is also the fact that acorns and trees have no rights to be protected. It is a totally different animal, so to speak.
Describe the emotional ties you’d have toward the girl. Remember, you know nothing about her. Why don’t you have these same emotional ties to the blastocysts. Remember, you see the blastocycts as unborn babies, right?
Visual, Cin, visual. A little girl is much more emotionally appealing than embryos in a dish.
Since blastocysts are not people, it’s kind of tough to get as emotionally attached to them, isn’t it?
Emotionally attachment does not speak to personhood. You can be emotionally attached to a dog or a even a tree. That doesn’t make them a person.
At some point before birth you said you recognize unborn babies as a person. But still at that point, they do not have the same emotional attachment as one who has been born.
Also, have you never been around someone who went through a miscarriage, even early on? If they are aware that they lost their baby, and thats the terminology they use, they mourn. Again, not as much as if they lost a child who was born, but they do have a sense of emotional attachment.
I’ve asked this several times before and haven’t really heard you answer it yet – if it was 5 unborn babies (ones which you consider to be persons) versus the little girl, who do you save?
Also consider that in the fire scenario, you’ve have the exact same amount of time to get attached to the blastocycts as you have to the girl: 1 second.
I was speaking there about the emotional attachment and impact on the parents, not me. Parents are going to mourn much more for a 5-year-old. It is a much more difficult loss.
Those are all factors that play into who would be selected in a desperate situation, but they do not speak to who is a person. There have been numerous times when people have died and they were not mourned, that didn’t diminish their personhood.
Who would you save if you knew the blastocyts and the girl had equal viability?
You played my game, so I’ll play yours.
If you make all things equal, viability, meaning they all would grow to be children, etc. (though the emotional attachment issue would be hard to overcome), I would have to choose 5 persons over 1. It would be a dreadful horrible decision that I would relive and mourn for the rest of my life, but again I would have no choice but to save the 5. Go ahead and condemn me to your version of hell, now that you have your pull quote.
The cloning example refutes your point about a dog needing DNA from both parents to be considered a dog since that makes it “something different.”
Here’s where I again attempt the new tone, you are right that it refutes that point as over-arching rule that applies to every situation at every time. That “rule,” however, is still viable for those not conceived in a cloning manner.
You contend that there is a specific point in time that a person becomes a person. You are absolutely sure that point is conception. Yet, you have absolutely no clue when “personhood” occurs in clones. It’s “debatable.”
I didn’t say I had no clue when it happens. I said it was debatable, just as it is with normal human beings. I believe it to be a conception, Daniel somewhere else, you somewhere else, that is a debate.
Cloning is a much more complicated situation, but to extend my idea of personhood to clones, it would be when the parent DNA is inserted into the host egg. That would be my best guess.
And yes I did say guess because I am not fully aware of all the various issues with cloning. There are others, much more intelligent than I, who do know all of those issues and hold to the same position as I do. But my ignorance of the science involved, does not mean there is not an answer and there is not a point where they become a human being and a person.
Yes, I’m well aware of how you might portray this, but regardless of how you want to respond, I want to be honest.
This forces you to think about what “personhood” actually means. I can’t write off blastocycts as my children on my taxes. Why don’t they legally have the same rights as the little girl? Is there a good reason?
Perhaps you are right. Again, I have already said as much. You do make me think – that’s a good thing. But we come from such different worldviews that it is difficult for me to grasp the way you view things (the feeling is obviously mutual).
For me personhood equals human being. For those conceived in the normal way, this is a much easier question. For those potentially conceived in cloning, it is a more difficult question that requires much more knowledge of the science and processes involved to know the specific point, where I would place personhood and humanity.
We’ve went over this before, but I don’t think you want to fall back on how the government defines personhood as justification for your stance. There is not a good history there.
No, you can’t write embryos off or unborn babies minutes before they are born. Does that negate their personhood as well? I suppose the government’s reasoning their is that babies cost money (diapers, food, etc.) Unborn babies don’t, except for doctors’ bills which are tax deductible themselves.
I could ask the same question about babies that are minutes before birth, why don’t they legally have the same rights as the little girl? Is there a good reason? Again, I suppose the justification for taxes and such is the money spent, but I do not think there is a good reason (or perhaps the better terminology would be “sufficient reason”) to make a distinction between the two in terms of rights recognized.
Wow, Aaron. I try to be conciliatory and you come back with this? I thought maybe we could move forward with some sense of cooperation and exchange.
[edit] As I progressed through the rest of your post I noticed you turned the tone down a bit, for which I’m grateful. The following starts contentious but mellows as I see you are trying to provide honest responses to very difficult questions.
“I know my points are excellent.” You want me to concede a point, but what you mean is you want me to agree with you.”
Nope. You don’t get it. When I make a point that you can’t really contest like fertilization = pollination, you should concede that point so we can move on. You might not agree with it for whatever reason you have but since you can’t reasonably contest it, you should concede it. When you continue to contest points like that which you’ve obviously lost, it makes you look either unintelligent or prideful.
“You haven’t given me any good reasons to change my mind. Does that make us even?”
I had to explain to you about pollination and fertilization. I gave you good reasons to change your mind. Are you now backtracking?
“…I wasn’t speaking of how I felt”
Ya, you were. You feel that’s how I view you. Not so. That’s your own baggage. You are trying to play the victim. You “poor thing.”
“…the terminology “tree” refers to something that is growing outside of the ground.”
Actually, the tree grows in the ground. You know, roots. You must mean acorn. An acorn is independent of the tree just as a blastocyst is independent of the mother.
“There is also the fact that acorns and trees have no rights to be protected.”
Neither do blastocysts. That’s why we throw them in the trash. Also, we’re talking about when something becomes something else. Following your reasoning, trees are trees at pollination and acorns are trees also.
“A little girl is much more emotionally appealing than embryos in a dish.”
Yes! Yes! And, why is the visual of a girl so much more appealing? She looks like a person, does she not? Your instinct tells you the girl is definitely a person. Much more so than microscopic blastocysts in a petri dish, right?
“Emotionally attachment does not speak to personhood.”
It does tell you what YOU THINK about “personhood” where the rubber meets the road. You are more emotionally attached to the girl because? How can you be attached to her when you have seen her for a second? Is there something deep inside you that makes you see her as a person and not the petridish full of blastocysts?
“But still at that point, they do not have the same emotional attachment as one who has been born.”
They do! You asked, “You view humans in the womb as persons at some point, do you save them over the little girl? Does your choice mean you consider the other to be less of a person(s)?” I’d save the 5 over the little girl at that point. Not that the girl is less of a person but because we are talking about 5 persons vs. 1. If you really and truly believed blastocysts are the equivalent of babies, you would have saved them instead. But you don’t, and that’s why you save the girl.
“Also, have you never been around someone who went through a miscarriage, even early on? If they are aware that they lost their baby, and thats the terminology they use, they mourn.”
They do not mourn blastocysts. When a blastocyst is miscarried, the vast majority of the time the woman is unaware she was even pregnant. Remember, a blastocyst is 5 days old, microscopic and not even attached to the uterine wall. You’d never know if was expelled from the vagina and flushed down the toilet. That’s what usually happens and yes, I can provide evidence if you want. I think you’ll agree with me that the degree of mourning increases proportionally with tenure of the pregnancy. Basically, people will mourn a miscarriage at 6 months yet few will mourn a 5 day miscarriage, assuming they are even aware of it.
“Go ahead and condemn me to your version of hell, now that you have your pull quote.”
Aaron, you’ve chosen this time to be “horribly consistent” with your beliefs. This is exactly how you described Singer who “argues that parents should be able to kill children upwards of age 3 because of their lack of cognitive skills and ability to survive on their own.” To be consistent with your beliefs, that blastocysts = people, the only answer you could have given would be to let a little girl die screaming in agony as she burned to death all for the sake of 5 microscopic blastocyts who are unaware and can’t feel a thing. I honestly think that’s an absolutely horrid decision on your part but at least now you are consistent.
“I didn’t say I had no clue when it happens. I said it was debatable…”
Then where would you place the “point of personhood” for a clone and why? For me, it’s a gray area, a process. A clone and a baby in the womb develops in exactly the same way except that they are not conceived. There is no merger of egg and sperm. If you say that it’s during SCNT, I have to ask what difference does that make in relation to “personhood” since the donor egg’s DNA is removed.
“And yes I did say guess because I am not fully aware of all the various issues with cloning.”
I know, and neither am I.
“Yes, I’m well aware of how you might portray this, but regardless of how you want to respond, I want to be honest.”
That honesty makes this whole long thread worth it, I feel.
“No, you can’t write embryos off or unborn babies minutes before they are born. Does that negate their personhood as well?”
That’s a good point and the answer is no, that doesn’t negate their personhood as well. This falls into that gray area where I am just not sure of when a developing fetus becomes a person. I am not sure about when an adult becomes and adult but the law says that it’s exactly at 18. I think though that’s as arbitrary as saying that birth is when a person becomes a person.
I think we should end here Aaron, by mutual agreement, unless you have any objections?
>> LOUIS: You guys established the principle that a simple majority vote can take away civil rights and create a whole group of second-class citizens just because that’s your “faith.”
I agree with you Louis, in that we should not have a rule by majority, but rule by just LAW. That’s what a Constitution is all about. But where do the presumably objective, just laws and principles of such a Constitution come from?
Answer? I would say a general ethic of ‘do no harm’ plus natural law.
This does NOT mean, however, that all that is *natural* (i.e. seen in nature) is meant for public policy (social darwinism, anyone?), but rather, we appeal to a *higher law* that is not quite justifiable by reason alone, but appeals to the health of humans – that is nature as it is in it’s highest, healthiest norm.
And this is where we begin to disagree. It seems obvious to me that the ideal situation for adult and child emotional health is in a monogamous hetero family. Other situations are, by the definition of what is best and natural, unhealthy. Science could support such a contention, perhaps.
So what do we do with the ‘inferior’ situations? We have four choices:
– outlaw them
– regulate them
– ignore them
– support them
You argue that hx relationships are a normal variant. I think that is questionable. So, I generously suggest that we stop one short of supporting them, which is ignoring them – that is, giving them rights without direct support. This seems such a smart move, I am amazed that some gays reject it.
They want outright civil support for something questionable. I think that’s hubris, and abuse of public policy for selfish reasons.
>> CIN: Christians mistakenly think morality comes from their god.
The essence of the moral argument is not mistaken, you just don’t agree. You might argue that the Christian God may not be the authoritative lawgiver, but without a higher law and lawgiver, you have only subjective moralism.
But the argument, which can be reduced to the following syllogy, seems sound to me:
1. Without an independent lawgiver (God), morals are subjective
2. Objective morals exist
3. Therefore, there is a God.
>> CIN: Why don’t you go running around killing everyone?
This is, as Aaron said, a straw man. *IF* subjective moralists were consistent with their value system, they would
– never assert their morals over another
– never judge others as morally wrong
– feel free to live as if there were no real moral laws
The reason they don’t, as Francis Schaeffer says, is that you can’t live with that value system and be happy. So what you do is you say you believe in subjective morals, but you LIVE as if objective morals really exist. The reason you don’t go around killing everyone, besides the fact that our laws might punish you, or that you might generate animosity towards yourself, is that you realize that such things ARE objectively morally wrong.
It’s the same reason that many Muslims don’t go around killing everyone (though many do) – they fail to do so, not because their prophet has not commanded it, but because common sense dictates that such things are evil.
>> CIN: Your decision to save 1 person instead of 5 “persons” tells me what YOU THINK about personhood. It tells me where your priorities are.
This is a good point – would you save an old person or a young, and why? You could consider both persons, yet have some value system that prioritizes one over the other. Perhaps the younger person has yet to live their life, and so you save them. Perhaps the older person has some knowledge that can save many lives, so you save them. Choosing a child over a blastocyst does not necessarily mean that deep down Aaron doesn’t think it’s a person.
As you know, while I do not disagree with Aaron on personhood beginning at conception, from a public policy standpoint, I think that a legal definition starting at around 4-6 weeks, when brain and heart activity begin, is very fair.
>> CIN: Most people in the world don’t think A human being/person begins at conception.
You’ll have to show some documentation on that, I don’t believe you. For instance, this poll (When does human personhood begin?) at religioustolerance.org shows that the MAJORITY of respondents (49% Christian) believed that personhood begins at conception. Since most people are affilliated with xianity, this means that most Americans DO believe that.
>> CIN: If you can find an atheist who believes that personhood begins at conception, I’d love to hear his rational.
It would be the same as the argument that the Christian makes – that at conception, you have a unique, potential human being. An atheist could even use my argument, which doesn’t depend on religious authority either. I mean, what argument WOULD an atheist use to define personhood? Perhaps they wouldn’t allow it till age 4 when children begin to reason? ;)
>> CIN: He says he doesn’t differentiate between being a person and being a human being yet he distinguishes between them with paranthesis
I think that he basically says that, though ‘personhood’ is a legal term, and so perhaps separate from being ‘human,’ he believes that they overlap entirely. So for him, there is not difference, they start and end together.
But as concepts, ‘human’ is a scientific claim, while ‘person’ is an ethical, moral, and legal claim.
>> CIN: Appaently, babies > blastocysts. So, what makes 5 babies more important to Aaron than 5 blastocysts?
That is a good question, but again, his prioritization does not obviate their personhood. What if you made this 5 7-month old fetuses or one living baby? At some point, the potential of the ‘seed’ is at a point of personhood, and that is WAAAAY before the 9th month. I agree somewhat with your crtique of Aaron’s logic, but I also stand by my own, from a legal perspective.
BTW, that poll is When does human personhood begin?