Kevin's Watch

Brinn hit the nail on the head.

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

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

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.

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.

Of course, in this hypothetical, saving the zygotes means saving them - not just carrying them into another place to "die."

We will assume that they're in a uncontaminated, sealed, shockproof, and temp-controlled suitcase, okay?

No more cop-outs...

Now, what about 20 children that you could save at once, or your own child?

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?

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.

Yeah, Edge, we'll file that under the "I don't really understand the point of a hypothetical exercise, but perhaps I can de-rail this thread" cop-out.

Next?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

(Honestly, I'm scared we're wandering back into the "accusations of potential hypocrisy" zone, but this is something I'm seriously curious about.)

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.)

ur-bane wrote:(After all, more zygotes could be "made" that would potentially have the ability to offer possible cures for that same wasting disease.)

A very telling point, as far as I'm concerned. More zygotes can always be "made". More people, more individuals, can't.

--A

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.

It does appear that we have reached a general consensus on this.

Cail wrote:Anyone, regardless of their beliefs, is going to save their child first.

That just about says it all.