Kevin's Watch

I don't think it's wrong at all. In fact, I think a fine appreciation of irony is inevitable when attempting to understand humans.

--Avatar

Plissken wrote:As I understand it, the basis for the Pro Life argument is that even a zygote is human life, and that ending that level of cell division is murder.

We'll skip all of the scientific questions this raises, as I'm more concerned about the ethical and moral questions this raises. So here we go:

Say that you and your spouse have been trying to create a second child, to complete your family. Due to some unforseen difficulties, you have begun the process of invitro fertilizations. While at the clinic to select the zygotes with which your wife will be impregnated, with your wife and first child, a fire breaks out. Your wife and the medical staff escape unharmed, but you, your child, and a tray containing 20-30 of your zygotes are surrounded by flames, and you can only carry out your infant child or the tray of petri dishes.

What do you do, and why?

Plissken wrote:As I understand it, the basis for the Pro Life argument is that even a zygote is human life, and that ending that level of cell division is murder.

We'll skip all of the scientific questions this raises, as I'm more concerned about the ethical and moral questions this raises. So here we go:

Say that you and your spouse have been trying to create a second child, to complete your family. Due to some unforseen difficulties, you have begun the process of invitro fertilizations. While at the clinic to select the zygotes with which your wife will be impregnated, with your wife and first child, a fire breaks out. Your wife and the medical staff escape unharmed, but you, your child, and a tray containing 20-30 of your zygotes are surrounded by flames, and you can only carry out your infant child or the tray of petri dishes.

What do you do, and why?

Oh boy,
You know it is my experience that people who ask these questions aren’t really interested in the answers anyway; they’re just throwing curveballs trying to strike out someone with an opposing view. But for the sake of balance & reason, I’ll give it a shot.

First of all, most ProLife people are protecting the beginning of a birth. Science has people acting like God and using Petri dishes in the first place. Regardless, most Christians wouldn’t view a zygote in a Petri dish as anything yet. But forget about that too.

Okay, so let’s say that I’m a ProLife Christian, this is about Christians, regardless of whether the word was used or not, and those zygotes mean something to me. I feel as if they are as important as any other life. Then the only logical outcome would be that the zygotes, my child, and myself would all burn because I was recklessly trying to save too many at once when there wasn’t time.

Sound crazy? Let’s make those zygotes important to everyone. Let’s say that there was a terrible bird flu that wiped out almost all civilization when it spread to humans and you & your child are in a fire with the same decision. You see how now it suddenly is completely different?

These kinds of questions aren’t really useful. They’re meant to cause division not understanding. It’s like saying, “If God can do anything at all then can He make a stone that He can’t break?” It’s silly. How does that help anything? Even if a well-presented answer comes along, by then 5 pages of one side trying to figure out how to play basketball blind while the other side loads their shotguns and prepare to fire at any ball that comes remotely close to the basket and if someone gets hurt along the way they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

How about this? Instead of asking how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, ask real questions and learn some real answers. If you don’t like someone or a group of someones because of their religious beliefs then how does it benefit society, you, or anyone at all to make fun of their viewpoints? But if instead, because you don’t like them, you ask them tough questions for which you would like to know the answers, then both parties are to gain.

Let’s say that I don’t like black people. I’ve had some very good friends that are black and perhaps some of you are black. In fact, I once wished I were black or at least partially black, just as I’ve wished to be a woman or an Indian before as well. But let’s pretend for a moment that I just don’t like black people. So I could ask, “How come you people do RAP at all? It’s not even singing.” To which I will receive a bunch of anger and I’ll be able to retort, “see, I told you it was all about sex and violence, these are typical responses.” But the problem was that I was trolling for those responses in the first place. If instead I asked, “I don’t understand the appeal of RAP music. I feel like it’s too hostile towards women and it makes me uncomfortable. I really enjoy classical because it calms my nerves. What do you think?” Now all of a sudden you’ll have a valid and interesting interaction with a group of people you didn’t even realize were human. They’ll tell you, to your shock and awe, that they too listen to classical and rock and roll and jazz and all kinds of music. They’ll give reasonable explanations about why they like how RAP helps them express themselves. And some people will tell you that they too feel uncomfortable for the very same reasons. But if you just come into the forum throwing around clichés with everything upto the N word then you’re never going to get anywhere close to understanding someone that simply is black.

This isn’t a Rodney King plea to just get along. I really don’t care if someone doesn’t like me for what I believe in or for who I am in any way shape or form. But at least show some measure of respect that you would prefer to have shown to you. If you like a certain type of entertainment like reading, you wouldn’t think it was intelligent or logical or empathic for someone to say you were an idiot wasting your time with fantasy when there’s more than enough reality in the world to concern yourself about, would you?

The answer to this question is that people die trying to save precious things sometimes. And no one ever knows how much time there is during an emergency, that’s why we believe there are heroes. We say, that car could have blown up at any second & he pulled me out of there; even though we may later learn that the car would never have blown up we don’t lose respect for someone who tries to do the right thing in the first place. I don’t see how making fun of people who try to live their lives in a way they believe is right is making yourself out to be a good person at all.

And make no mistake. I don’t know the poster at all. So I don’t harbor any angst at him personally. It wouldn’t do much good anyway. I’d rather have him as a friend. I didn’t write this to blast him. It’s not really his fault at all. Society and education teach people to be difficult to people that don’t fit into the system. All the time in college you hear laughter at the slightest mention of anything godly at all. I guess I just thought I’d tell everyone here that I think it doesn’t serve any useful purpose and that there is another way to deal with each other and all our differences, chosen or otherwise.

MrMajestic wrote:Oh boy,
You know it is my experience that people who ask these questions aren’t really interested in the answers anyway; they’re just throwing curveballs trying to strike out someone with an opposing view

This particular sentiment has already been covered in this thread. Plissken has explained the reason behind the question, and throwing a curveball is not it.
He has a legitimate goal in mind, and although he may not get the answer he may have thought, his intention is definately not to "throw a curveball."

Mr. Majestic wrote:
First of all, most ProLife people are protecting the beginning of a birth. Science has people acting like God and using Petri dishes in the first place. Regardless, most Christians wouldn’t view a zygote in a Petri dish as anything yet. But forget about that too.

If this were indeed true, there would be no point of contention. "Most Christians" believe that life begins at conception--the moment at which the spermatazoa fertilizes the ovum. Therefore, a zygote would be considered a life.

Mr. Majestic wrote: Okay, so let’s say that I’m a ProLife Christian, this is about Christians, regardless of whether the word was used or not, and those zygotes mean something to me. I feel as if they are as important as any other life. Then the only logical outcome would be that the zygotes, my child, and myself would all burn because I was recklessly trying to save too many at once when there wasn’t time.

Well, firstly, this is not limited to "Christians."
Secondly, I would think that the logical conclusion would NOT be that you all die. Logically, IMHO, saving your child would be a priority, and then an attempt to save the zygotes would be made. I would insure the survival of my child--that's emotional and logical.

Mr. Majestic wrote: Sound crazy? Let’s make those zygotes important to everyone. Let’s say that there was a terrible bird flu that wiped out almost all civilization when it spread to humans and you & your child are in a fire with the same decision. You see how now it suddenly is completely different?

That is a situation not posed in this hypothetical. Who's to say what the outcome would be in the most extreme situation?
It is not a comparable question.

Mr. Majestic wrote: These kinds of questions aren’t really useful. They’re meant to cause division not understanding. It’s like saying, “If God can do anything at all then can He make a stone that He can’t break?” It’s silly. How does that help anything? Even if a well-presented answer comes along, by then 5 pages of one side trying to figure out how to play basketball blind while the other side loads their shotguns and prepare to fire at any ball that comes remotely close to the basket and if someone gets hurt along the way they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Once again, I say to you that Plissken has clearly stated his motive.

Mr. Majestic wrote: How about this? Instead of asking how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, ask real questions and learn some real answers. If you don’t like someone or a group of someones because of their religious beliefs then how does it benefit society, you, or anyone at all to make fun of their viewpoints? But if instead, because you don’t like them, you ask them tough questions for which you would like to know the answers, then both parties are to gain.

See above response.

Mr. Majestic wrote: And make no mistake. I don’t know the poster at all. So I don’t harbor any angst at him personally. It wouldn’t do much good anyway. I’d rather have him as a friend. I didn’t write this to blast him. It’s not really his fault at all. Society and education teach people to be difficult to people that don’t fit into the system. All the time in college you hear laughter at the slightest mention of anything godly at all. I guess I just thought I’d tell everyone here that I think it doesn’t serve any useful purpose and that there is another way to deal with each other and all our differences, chosen or otherwise.

To what "fault" are you referring? Is the situation that prompted the asking of this question Plissken's fault? Where is there any fault in the quest for knowledge when the question is clearly explained throughout the course of the discussion?

BTW....welcom to the Close....I see Avatar's recruiting policy is effective.

ur-bane wrote: If this were indeed true, there would be no point of contention. "Most Christians" believe that life begins at conception--the moment at which the spermatazoa fertilizes the ovum. Therefore, a zygote would be considered a life.

Yes, most Christians believe that life begins at conception; but not in a science experiment petri dish. That's why I said people are playing God now and it makes all the lines rather fuzzy because they are playing God. If instead you said that I had a 3yr old daughter & a wife who just found out she was pregnant with quadruplets then there would be no point of contention. And again, in that scenario everyone would die. If a person truly believes that life begins at ground zero then the action would be to save them all & die trying.

You're saying that because you don't believe this that you would emotionally save your child. That's okay. You don't believe it. But if someone truly did believe it then they wouldn't leave that house.

Mr. Majestic wrote: Sound crazy? Let’s make those zygotes important to everyone. Let’s say that there was a terrible bird flu that wiped out almost all civilization when it spread to humans and you & your child are in a fire with the same decision. You see how now it suddenly is completely different?

ur-bane wrote: That is a situation not posed in this hypothetical. Who's to say what the outcome would be in the most extreme situation?
It is not a comparable question.

Sure it is. The original question is extreme. See above response.


Like I said, I wasn't pointing my post at the poster specifically, but rather everyone in general who practices what I stated as useless curveball throwing. I confess I didn't read the whole 5pg thread. I read the first & fourth page to make sure it was still on track. If there's a reason for the question that escapes me, so be it. My statement still stands that we should be more respectful of other people's differences.

I completely agree that respect should be given to all. And everyone at this forum certainly deserves it.

One thing that you will see at the Watch, is that almost all of the discussions in the Close and the Think Tank are not deliberate attacks on anyone's belief. Rather, they are a way of expressing yours, and understanding another's, opinion.

The original question does not include "the survival of an almost extinct human race hangs in the balance." That is quite a different degree than the hypothetical posed. But it's no matter...I understand the reason for your example.

MrMajestic wrote:My statement still stands that we should be more respectful of other people's differences.

Amen to that!

Nice to see you in here, as I said, this is the place to test those skills. That said, I think that Ur-Bane is right, and you've perhaps misinterpreted the context of this topic, or, understandably, not read all the posts in it.

Mr Majestic wrote:Sound crazy? Let’s make those zygotes important to everyone. Let’s say that there was a terrible bird flu that wiped out almost all civilization when it spread to humans and you & your child are in a fire with the same decision. You see how now it suddenly is completely different?

Not really to be honest. Are you suggesting that in this case the zygotes suddenly represent a more important thing to people? Because they're putatively free of disease perhaps?

Anyway, I think that Ur-Banes response pretty much covered what I would have said, so I'll leave it at that, save to welcome you once again here, and remind you to try out the Think-Tank as well.

And Ur-Bane--

Ur-Bane wrote:Where is there any fault in the quest for knowledge when the question is clearly explained throughout the course of the discussion?

Excellently said.

--Avatar

(EDIT: Oops, was busy with something else, so never saw those additions. Will check them out and then double-post. )

Brinn wrote:After thinking this through some and trying to follow certain trains of thought to their logical conclusions it seems to always come back to the same question: At what point is a life a "life" and worthy of protection?

Hypothetically again, If the only way to save a loved one was through the harvesting of certain organs, cells, body parts etc...from a fully developed living clone, would that be permissible? If so why? I assume the answer would be because said clone is out of the womb and functioning thus qualifying it as human life. Now scale this back and answer the same question but instead of a fully formed clone substitute an 8 month fetus. Is that permissable? How a bout a 2 month fetus? And so the progression continues until we're talking about the twenty zygotes.

I think this is the root of the question. My buddy and his wife who just had the failed in vitro are both pro-choice. The twins they just lost were 3-4 weeks on. They don't say "we just lost the zygotes" or "we just lost a collection of cells", they say "we just lost the babies".

From several conversations both here and in the real world, pro-choice folks tend to dehumanize the fetus when it's supporting their argument, but in conditions of personal, extreme stress, such as a miscarriage, they lost a child.

Mr. Majestic wrote:If a person truly believes that life begins at ground zero then the action would be to save them all & die trying.

And there you have Plissken's point in a nutshell, I think. His biggest question here is the apparent discrepancy between the "beliefs" and the "actions" of those who claim a particular belief.

Ur-Bane, again, well said indeed. These forums are venues for the exploration and discussion of peoples beliefs and ideas, and the reasons underpinning them, more than anything else.

Cail, I must agree. We do "dehumanise" the foetus. Of course, the alternative is to "humanise" it. It is the "non-human" nature of it that I believe makes it acceptable to terminate.

In the case you metion though, you reiterate the whole emotional question. When it comes to emotions, people are rarely so clinical.

--A

Cail wrote:

Brinn wrote:After thinking this through some and trying to follow certain trains of thought to their logical conclusions it seems to always come back to the same question: At what point is a life a "life" and worthy of protection?

Hypothetically again, If the only way to save a loved one was through the harvesting of certain organs, cells, body parts etc...from a fully developed living clone, would that be permissible? If so why? I assume the answer would be because said clone is out of the womb and functioning thus qualifying it as human life. Now scale this back and answer the same question but instead of a fully formed clone substitute an 8 month fetus. Is that permissable? How a bout a 2 month fetus? And so the progression continues until we're talking about the twenty zygotes.

I think this is the root of the question. My buddy and his wife who just had the failed in vitro are both pro-choice. The twins they just lost were 3-4 weeks on. They don't say "we just lost the zygotes" or "we just lost a collection of cells", they say "we just lost the babies".

From several conversations both here and in the real world, pro-choice folks tend to dehumanize the fetus when it's supporting their argument, but in conditions of personal, extreme stress, such as a miscarriage, they lost a child.

This is definitely the root of the question.

I'll try to explain the seeming contridiction Cail brings up. Av's right to a degree when he says that emotion is involved - but that's only a part of it. What we're talking about here are the hopes and expectations the folk involved have for the coming baby. We often create visions in our own heads for our children (and friends, and lovers...) that have little or no relation to reality. It's actually a good thing, when it comes to children. You can't start an effective college fund if you wait 'till the kid graduates from highschool. This doesn't just happen with babies - it's pretty common for mothers to mourn their "lost grandchildren" when their own children come out of the closet. When a Pro Choicer refers to losing a baby to an early term miscarriage they're mourning the loss of expectations they'd created for the baby it would've become, same as anyone else.

Mr. Majestic wrote:

ur-bane wrote:If this were indeed true, there would be no point of contention. "Most Christians" believe that life begins at conception--the moment at which the spermatazoa fertilizes the ovum. Therefore, a zygote would be considered a life.

Yes, most Christians believe that life begins at conception; but not in a science experiment petri dish.

I never discussed this particular idea before, so I don't understand. I assume the soul that Christians believe in has something to do with the whole topic. At what point do you think most Christians believe the soul becomes part of the being when the sperm and egg meet via the natural method; and how can it happen at any other time when any other method is employed?

Well spotted Fist, and a good question, I think. What difference does it make (to those who believe in it) whether conception happened "normally" or "scientifically"?

I wouldn't have though it made the slightest difference.

--Avatar

Fist and Faith wrote:

Mr. Majestic wrote:

ur-bane wrote:If this were indeed true, there would be no point of contention. "Most Christians" believe that life begins at conception--the moment at which the spermatazoa fertilizes the ovum. Therefore, a zygote would be considered a life.

Yes, most Christians believe that life begins at conception; but not in a science experiment petri dish.

I never discussed this particular idea before, so I don't understand. I assume the soul that Christians believe in has something to do with the whole topic. At what point do you think most Christians believe the soul becomes part of the being when the sperm and egg meet via the natural method; and how can it happen at any other time when any other method is employed?

Even Christians didn't used to be in line on this - the sect I was raised in taught that the soul came with the first actual breath the child took. Of course, this has changed under the twin pressures of theoretical complications brought on from medical science and political pressure to close ranks with other Fundamentalist groups. I'm pretty sure they're in the "life begins when sperm meets egg" camp now. Even as science asks more difficult questions of this theory, I'm sure that the joy of being enfolded within the "mainstream" of Christianity will keep them from any further adjustments in theory or practice.

It would be nice for me, at least as a mental exercise, if Pro Life Christians began insisting that only the sancum of a mother's womb allows the soul to enter, but I doubt that this will happen.

Just think of the practical questions that could be raised by that bit of dogma!

Believing as I do that a "soul" (for want of a better word) is something that you develop as you grow and learn and act, it's obviously not an issue for me.

I'm curious though, is it a question of "soul" for christians? I've tended to think that it was simply a question of life.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:I'm curious though, is it a question of "soul" for christians? I've tended to think that it was simply a question of life.

Like Plissken, I was taught that the soul entered the child at birth with his/her first breath, not at conception.
Therefore, it would have to be a question of life, not of soul.

But in that event, what then does happen if an unfortunate occurance like a miscarriage should take place?
What happens to the "soulless" child? Because he/she lacked the inception of Baptism into the faith, is he/she doomed to not enter heaven?

I am curious to know people's take on that, if the soul truly is received at birth.

Plissken wrote: It would be nice for me, at least as a mental exercise, if Pro Life Christians began insisting that only the sancum of a mother's womb allows the soul to enter, but I doubt that this will happen.

Could you expand on this? Are you saying that the true issue with Christians is the "soul" and not "life"? And that perhaps they are misrepresenting the true cause of their worry?

Plissken must know some wacky Christians. For me, religion has no bearing on my beliefs, therefore the soul has nothing to do with my views. I believe life begins at conception, period.

Interesting. Again, never having discussed this aspect of the soul, I'm learning new things about some beliefs. The soul entering after the first breath is a surprise to me.

ur-bane wrote:But in that event, what then does happen if an unfortunate occurance like a miscarriage should take place?
What happens to the "soulless" child? Because he/she lacked the inception of Baptism into the faith, is he/she doomed to not enter heaven?

If there is no first breath, and therefore no soul, what is there to enter or not enter heaven?

I am 100% with you on that Cail.
Although I think we all know some wacky [insert label here].

I've always discussed religion as an answer provided to try to explain that which is unexplainable, and to also try to offer a code for living/interacting.

But I don't personally need a religion to tell me what is right or wrong. I can figure that out myself. Although at times the Wisdom lacks, I make due.

Regardless of what Pro- I may be, I'd still save my child before the zygotes, just as I would save your daughter, or Plissken's child, or Avatar's or Fists or anybody's for that matter.

Fist and Faith wrote:If there is no first breath, and therefore no soul, what is there to enter or not enter heaven?

Exactly what I am thinking. Wouldn't that be a concept to further dishearten someone who may have suffered such a loss?
I mean, there was a life there. What comfort would the parents have?

ur-bane wrote:But in that event, what then does happen if an unfortunate occurance like a miscarriage should take place?
What happens to the "soulless" child? Because he/she lacked the inception of Baptism into the faith, is he/she doomed to not enter heaven?

IIRC, the original doctrine was indeed that any unbaptised child would not be allowed in heaven, but that this has been changed. (Hopefully someone can confirm or correct?)

ur-bane wrote:Are you saying that the true issue with Christians is the "soul" and not "life"? And that perhaps they are misrepresenting the true cause of their worry?

Perhaps misunderstanding or misinterpreting? I'm not sure.

--A