Hypothetical question about the Pro Life stance
Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith
- Iryssa
- Bloodguard
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:41 am
- Location: The great white north *grin*
Brinn hit the nail on the head.
"A choice made freely is stronger than one compelled"
- Stephen R. Donaldson's The Wounded Land
https://www.xanga.com/Iryssa
- Stephen R. Donaldson's The Wounded Land
https://www.xanga.com/Iryssa
- Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
I agree with Brinn, but I submit that even in cases where there is an alternative, (however unpleasant, or however unwilling (or unable) the person is to take it), it is still an emotional issue. I think that many people tend to see it as "a baby", hence the equation with murder.
Plissken, I'm not saying you don't deserve consistency, just that because of the emotional nature of the issue, you're not going to get it. The perception may rest on the fact that an embryo, however undeveloped, is "alive" (in a purely biological sense) inside the mother.
Zygotes, however many, are the province of science to people. I doubt that people think of an embryo as simply a "zygote" at any stage, even when it can be considered one.
Because we don't draw that distinction, we see it as this glaring inconsistency. And logically, it is. But because it's an emotionally approached and considered issue, many probably don't even think of that distinction.
--Avatar
Plissken, I'm not saying you don't deserve consistency, just that because of the emotional nature of the issue, you're not going to get it. The perception may rest on the fact that an embryo, however undeveloped, is "alive" (in a purely biological sense) inside the mother.
Zygotes, however many, are the province of science to people. I doubt that people think of an embryo as simply a "zygote" at any stage, even when it can be considered one.
Because we don't draw that distinction, we see it as this glaring inconsistency. And logically, it is. But because it's an emotionally approached and considered issue, many probably don't even think of that distinction.
--Avatar
I understand what you and Brinn are saying, except for the argument that the zygote isn't considered "alive" unless it's inside the mother -- again, if that was the case, the argument on stem-cell research would vanish.Avatar wrote:I agree with Brinn, but I submit that even in cases where there is an alternative, (however unpleasant, or however unwilling (or unable) the person is to take it), it is still an emotional issue. I think that many people tend to see it as "a baby", hence the equation with murder.
Plissken, I'm not saying you don't deserve consistency, just that because of the emotional nature of the issue, you're not going to get it. The perception may rest on the fact that an embryo, however undeveloped, is "alive" (in a purely biological sense) inside the mother.
Zygotes, however many, are the province of science to people. I doubt that people think of an embryo as simply a "zygote" at any stage, even when it can be considered one.
Because we don't draw that distinction, we see it as this glaring inconsistency. And logically, it is. But because it's an emotionally approached and considered issue, many probably don't even think of that distinction.
--Avatar
As for the "Well, you can't expect logic or consistency on such an emotional issue" bit, I argue that this is the type of Lib-on-Con condescension Cail should be railing against - "Oooh, those poor besotted Bible-thumpers can't be expected to use a consistent approach to their arguments. Just let 'em go and play at legislation..."
If they've thought this out, I want to hear what they think. If they haven't thought this out, I want them to think about it and then tell me what they think!
Say someone did save the zygotes because they believed that saving 20 lives was more important than saving one. The zygotes would probably not last very long outside the controls of the lab environment; they'd "die" very quickly. Add to that the fact that the saver left their own kid to die in a fire, and you've got someone responsible for 21 "deaths."
The only logical thing to do is save the kid, no matter what one's stance on abortion might be.
The only logical thing to do is save the kid, no matter what one's stance on abortion might be.
Halfway down the stairs Is the stair where I sit. There isn't any other stair quite like it. I'm not at the bottom, I'm not at the top; So this is the stair where I always stop.
- Gadget nee Jemcheeta
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 2040
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:05 pm
- Location: Cleveland
Hypothetical questions only warrant hypothetical answers.
For example: in this situation, I would save all the zygotes, my child, and also five complete strangers on the third floor of the building.
Now, here's my hypothetical question: If you were in a situation where you had to choose to save either your parent, your spouse, or your child: which one would it be?
For example: in this situation, I would save all the zygotes, my child, and also five complete strangers on the third floor of the building.
Now, here's my hypothetical question: If you were in a situation where you had to choose to save either your parent, your spouse, or your child: which one would it be?
Check out my digital art at www.brian.co.za
Okay, to cure the cop-out : I'd save the kid. Zygotes are zygotes, kids are kids. But I'm pro-choice, and I don't believe that zygotes are people. I can't give you the pro-life stance.
As for Edge's question--I'd save the kid. A, the kid's got a longer life ahead of him/her. B, my parent (either one of them) and any spouse I may one day have would never forgive me for not saving the kid. I'd probably save the kid even if it wasn't mine.
As for Edge's question--I'd save the kid. A, the kid's got a longer life ahead of him/her. B, my parent (either one of them) and any spouse I may one day have would never forgive me for not saving the kid. I'd probably save the kid even if it wasn't mine.
Halfway down the stairs Is the stair where I sit. There isn't any other stair quite like it. I'm not at the bottom, I'm not at the top; So this is the stair where I always stop.
au contraire, mon frere- I understand the purpose of the exercise perfectly.
In a nutshell: it means presenting an unreal situation - one that has never happened and probably never will - in order to force a choice on someone based on their stated ethical beliefs.
The point of the exercise is solely to afford you the satisfaction of picking apart the hypothetical responses to hypothetical questions, so that at the first opportunity you can yell, "HAH! You're a hypocrite!"
I won't play that game.
In a nutshell: it means presenting an unreal situation - one that has never happened and probably never will - in order to force a choice on someone based on their stated ethical beliefs.
The point of the exercise is solely to afford you the satisfaction of picking apart the hypothetical responses to hypothetical questions, so that at the first opportunity you can yell, "HAH! You're a hypocrite!"
I won't play that game.
Check out my digital art at www.brian.co.za
- Iryssa
- Bloodguard
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:41 am
- Location: The great white north *grin*
well said, Edge
I'd like to say more, but I'm on someone else's computer, so I don't have time to rant
I'd like to say more, but I'm on someone else's computer, so I don't have time to rant
"A choice made freely is stronger than one compelled"
- Stephen R. Donaldson's The Wounded Land
https://www.xanga.com/Iryssa
- Stephen R. Donaldson's The Wounded Land
https://www.xanga.com/Iryssa
No, I stated my motives. If there is any extra motivation in getting people to explain their stated ethical beliefs, it's come about since this thread was started.Edge wrote:au contraire, mon frere- I understand the purpose of the exercise perfectly.
In a nutshell: it means presenting an unreal situation - one that has never happened and probably never will - in order to force a choice on someone based on their stated ethical beliefs.
The point of the exercise is solely to afford you the satisfaction of picking apart the hypothetical responses to hypothetical questions, so that at the first opportunity you can yell, "HAH! You're a hypocrite!"
I won't play that game.
Personally, I think that if your beliefs can't be taken to logical conclusions without hypocrisy, it's probably time to examine them.
You know, think of it as a chance to find out what you really think, before the "unreal-situation-which-will-probably-never-happen" actually happens and you're told what you think by Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, and Bill "Video Diagnosis" Frist.
If that happens, we'll just call it another motivation I've developed since you've started dodging the question.
Last edited by Plissken on Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- ur-bane
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:35 am
- Location: United States of Andelain
I think this one is a no-brainer...regardless of what "pro" you are.
Let's see....rescue a breathing, thinking, feeling child, or a tray of cells that might mature into a child after a uterine implant attempt?
I would not hesitate to save the child.
Let's see....rescue a breathing, thinking, feeling child, or a tray of cells that might mature into a child after a uterine implant attempt?
I would not hesitate to save the child.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want
to test a man's character, give him power.
--Abraham Lincoln
Excerpt from Animal Songs Never Written
"Hey, dad," croaked the vulture, "what are you eating?"
"Carrion, my wayward son."
"Will there be pieces when you are done?"
Well, sure. Again, this is for a frame of refrence outside the strictly scientific, or even the "playing the odds..." mindset.
This is for the mindset that invokes absolutes, based on theology or emotion.
As examples:
Cail is Pro Life, but more for emotional reasons than to meet a religious requirement. His point of view on the subject might be very different than, say, Edge or Iryssa's. They might each have a different view than dennis (if you're listening, it's time to come back, man).
The point is, all of these viewpoints are worth exploring - particularly if the answer you come up with starts with (like mine does), "This one is a no-brainer..."
There's a huge group of people for whom this is not a no-brainer, or at least their no-brainer isn't the same as ours. When the alternatives to your own point of view seem inexplicable, it's an excellent time to start asking questions.
This is for the mindset that invokes absolutes, based on theology or emotion.
As examples:
Cail is Pro Life, but more for emotional reasons than to meet a religious requirement. His point of view on the subject might be very different than, say, Edge or Iryssa's. They might each have a different view than dennis (if you're listening, it's time to come back, man).
The point is, all of these viewpoints are worth exploring - particularly if the answer you come up with starts with (like mine does), "This one is a no-brainer..."
There's a huge group of people for whom this is not a no-brainer, or at least their no-brainer isn't the same as ours. When the alternatives to your own point of view seem inexplicable, it's an excellent time to start asking questions.
- Fist and Faith
- Magister Vitae
- Posts: 23742
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 34 times
I'm not gonna try to insert my comments into the right quotes. Just a couple of general thoughts.
If there was a fire in a room that contained my child and 20 other children, or people of any age, I'd save mine first without the slightest hesitation. I'd cry for any I was unable to save, but I'd save mine even if I knew I wouldn't be able to save any others. So much for the petri dish.
However, I think that a group of cells that have the potential to become human beings should get more consideration and protection than almost any other group of cells. Nothing else can possibly become a human, after all.
If there was a fire in a room that contained my child and 20 other children, or people of any age, I'd save mine first without the slightest hesitation. I'd cry for any I was unable to save, but I'd save mine even if I knew I wouldn't be able to save any others. So much for the petri dish.
However, I think that a group of cells that have the potential to become human beings should get more consideration and protection than almost any other group of cells. Nothing else can possibly become a human, after all.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
Okay, now this is the conversation I originally envisioned. The question is, how much more consideration and protection do the "potentially human" cells get? Less than an infant belonging to the decision maker, that's clear. But what about the decision-makers parents? If sacrificing the zygote would stop a wasting disease for one of your parents, would consideration for that parents life outweigh the possible future for that zygote?Fist and Faith wrote:If there was a fire in a room that contained my child and 20 other children, or people of any age, I'd save mine first without the slightest hesitation. I'd cry for any I was unable to save, but I'd save mine even if I knew I wouldn't be able to save any others. So much for the petri dish.
However, I think that a group of cells that have the potential to become human beings should get more consideration and protection than almost any other group of cells. Nothing else can possibly become a human, after all.
(Honestly, I'm scared we're wandering back into the "accusations of potential hypocrisy" zone, but this is something I'm seriously curious about.)
- ur-bane
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:35 am
- Location: United States of Andelain
Very well said, Fist. And that hits the nail on the head for exactly the way I feel about it.
Plissken--For me, the answer is yes. My parents lives have more meaning to me, and therefore I would put their best interests ahead of the zygotes. (After all, more zygotes could be "made" that would potentially have the ability to offer possible cures for that same wasting disease.)
Plissken--For me, the answer is yes. My parents lives have more meaning to me, and therefore I would put their best interests ahead of the zygotes. (After all, more zygotes could be "made" that would potentially have the ability to offer possible cures for that same wasting disease.)
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want
to test a man's character, give him power.
--Abraham Lincoln
Excerpt from Animal Songs Never Written
"Hey, dad," croaked the vulture, "what are you eating?"
"Carrion, my wayward son."
"Will there be pieces when you are done?"
Plissken, I don't think even Dennis would give you the response you're looking for.
Anyone, regardless of their beliefs, is going to save their child first. I'd go as far as to say I'd save my daughter before my wife, you, Einstein, the Pope, Marie Curie, or Jimmy Page. I'd mourn their deaths and my inability to save them, but I wouldn't hesitate to save my daughter every time.
Even given the fact that I believe that the embryos are life, call me selfish, but my daughter's more important to me.
Anyone, regardless of their beliefs, is going to save their child first. I'd go as far as to say I'd save my daughter before my wife, you, Einstein, the Pope, Marie Curie, or Jimmy Page. I'd mourn their deaths and my inability to save them, but I wouldn't hesitate to save my daughter every time.
Even given the fact that I believe that the embryos are life, call me selfish, but my daughter's more important to me.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
- ur-bane
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:35 am
- Location: United States of Andelain
It does appear that we have reached a general consensus on this.
That just about says it all.Cail wrote:Anyone, regardless of their beliefs, is going to save their child first.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want
to test a man's character, give him power.
--Abraham Lincoln
Excerpt from Animal Songs Never Written
"Hey, dad," croaked the vulture, "what are you eating?"
"Carrion, my wayward son."
"Will there be pieces when you are done?"