posted
I keep hearing this talk about Pascal's Wager and I immediately think of the scene in the movie The Mummy where Beni is being approached slowly by Imhotep and rifles through a fistful of religious symbols all tied around his neck attempting various prayers and only upon pulling out a star of david convinces the mummy to let him serve him, rather then kill him.
Pascal's wager does not work to me because its pretty insulting to think God has need of friends so badly a mere verbal proclamation of belief will suddenly convince him to love you back instead of stuffing your butt in hell.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I believe the right to life is the most important human right, and that it begins when the egg is ferilized and begins to divide. It has its own genetic coding, it's own physical being. ... I believe human life begins when a living creature with unique human DNA is created in the womb fom its parent cells.
How do mono- and dizygotic twins factor into your perspective, with respect to the importance of unique human DNA? *interested
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He answered this before? My apologies. I am very confused amidst all of the threads we have had here, with all of the very different people involved.
[It is my personal failing.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: A fertilized, implanted egg, on the other hand, will. As for how I counter the argument that fertilized eggs often don't implant and should we try to "find" them somehow and preserve them - I don't see a problem with not interfering in natural death. As in, for instance, DNR orders for the terminally ill. If they want to request no one intervene and allow them to die naturally I have no problem with it.
If a fertiled egg never implants and is shed by the woman's body naturally, that is a natural death. So is miscarriage.
Aren't there some circumstances where we are morally obligated to intervene in a "natural death?" We now have a much longer lifespan because we have done so, both as a matter of public funding choices (water hygeine, FDA controls on contamination, etc.) as well as parental responsibilities to children (treatment for meningitis or pneumonia, for example). I don't see where the fetus should not be as protected as other children, in the context of arguing it is as important as (and has the same claim on our obligations) as a born child.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pascal's wager does not work to me because its pretty insulting to think God has need of friends so badly a mere verbal proclamation of belief will suddenly convince him to love you back instead of stuffing your butt in hell.
If you were really following Pascal's Wager, you would not merely verbally proclaim belief. Of course, I believe that to a large extent, we believe what we choose to believe.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aren't there some circumstances where we are morally obligated to intervene in a "natural death?"
That's an interesting question by itself (not just as a rhetorical point concerning abortion), but I'm not so sure the answer is as easy or straightforward as you imply.
I certainly do what I can to extend the life of my children, a point which is much more poignant since we almost lost Xerxes a year and a half ago, and would have without modern medicine, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of a moral obligation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: That's an interesting question by itself (not just as a rhetorical point concerning abortion), but I'm not so sure the answer is as easy or straightforward as you imply.
I certainly do what I can to extend the life of my children, a point which is much more poignant since we almost lost Xerxes a year and a half ago, and would have without modern medicine, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of a moral obligation.
*nods
It may well be that different people have different reasonable answers to this. However, note that I didn't say "legal" obligation, but just "moral" [see clarification below] -- and I did not qualify whether this was a great or small obligation.
Nonetheless, I think most of us think there is some moral obligation to protect one's children from at least some natural deaths. Wouldn't you think a parent had failed in his or her parental duties if that parent hadn't reached out and pulled the child away from falling off a cliff? (Or, even moreso, not let the child wander near cliffs! ) And yet it would have been a "natural death" if someone hadn't intervened.
I don't take the concession that there is a moral obligation at some level to establish that there is a moral obligation at every level, necessitating that everything possible be done to protect children.
However, what I was wrestling with was the idea (maybe I misinterpreted, BTW) that there is no obligation to intervene to prevent any natural death. If there is some obligation at some level -- and I think it's generally accepted that there is -- then a further discussion about why we would make protecting born children a priority but not do the same for the unborn is in order.
quote:Because no matter what care you give a sperm, or an egg, no matter how you nourish it and provide it with an optimal environment in which to grow, it will never be a human being.
But it's still got potential. It's just one step removed from that potential. The optimal environment for a sperm includes an egg. The optimal environment for an egg includes a sperm. The optimal environment for a fertilized egg includes a uterus. I don't see the potential of an egg as being any different, logically, than the combined potential of the egg and sperm that create it.
I don't see human life as having a distinct beginning moment (other than Adam/Eve/primordial goo), but rather as a continuum. There's no point where we go from the cells of our parents, which are human life, to something that is not human life, to something that is human life again. Just being human life, whether a blastocyst or a skin cell, doesn't give any particular value to the object of discussion.
quote:As for how I counter the argument that fertilized eggs often don't implant and should we try to "find" them somehow and preserve them - I don't see a problem with not interfering in natural death.
We frequently act to interfere with natural death. If these are persons with potential that must be protected, shouldn't we be applying our resources to try to determine what causes an implantation to fail and how we can prevent that? Even if we're OK with natural death, we tend to mourn the natural deaths of other people, why not of unimplanted blastocysts?
quote:I see abortion as a direct interference in the natural process
Again, we interfere with the natural process all the time. Being part of nature ourselves, everything we do is part of the natural process. Just because something is natural, it's not necessarily objectively good or bad. Botulism is natural, but we don't complain about interfering with nature when someone becomes sick from it and we try to help them.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: He answered this before? My apologies. I am very confused amidst all of the threads we have had here, with all of the very different people involved.
[It is my personal failing.]
I've never answered it before, steven's just being an idiot.
When monozygotic twinning occurs, I believe that two human lives are created from one. When the zygote splits, it leaves two seperate human beigns. They have identical DNA, but seperate bodies.
In dizygotic twinning, two seperate eggs are fertilized by two seperate sperm. This is much more straightforward, as they have seperate DNA and bodies.
I really don't think of twinning as an issue, really.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: A fertilized, implanted egg, on the other hand, will. As for how I counter the argument that fertilized eggs often don't implant and should we try to "find" them somehow and preserve them - I don't see a problem with not interfering in natural death. As in, for instance, DNR orders for the terminally ill. If they want to request no one intervene and allow them to die naturally I have no problem with it.
If a fertiled egg never implants and is shed by the woman's body naturally, that is a natural death. So is miscarriage.
Aren't there some circumstances where we are morally obligated to intervene in a "natural death?" We now have a much longer lifespan because we have done so, both as a matter of public funding choices (water hygeine, FDA controls on contamination, etc.) as well as parental responsibilities to children (treatment for meningitis or pneumonia, for example). I don't see where the fetus should not be as protected as other children, in the context of arguing it is as important as (and has the same claim on our obligations) as a born child.
I believe Belle's argument rests on deaths that can not be prevented.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I don't see human life as having a distinct beginning moment (other than Adam/Eve/primordial goo), but rather as a continuum. There's no point where we go from the cells of our parents, which are human life, to something that is not human life, to something that is human life again. Just being human life, whether a blastocyst or a skin cell, doesn't give any particular value to the object of discussion.
That's not really an argument I was making. My argument is that a zygote/fetus is not just human life, but a human life, it's own human being.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I believe Belle's argument rests on deaths that can not be prevented.
But we can prevent many miscarriages. We can probably prevent many more if we put enough resources into doing so.
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: When monozygotic twinning occurs, I believe that two human lives are created from one. When the zygote splits, it leaves two seperate human beigns. They have identical DNA, but seperate bodies
So the point about whether the new life has unique DNA is irrelevant, right? (Not trying to trap you or make a point -- this is just something that I always find difficult to piece out in understanding a given person's perspective. People will often mention the uniqueness of the DNA at one point, but then it seems that isn't really part of the argument at another point -- which is no big deal, just helps in understanding to clarify what is and isn't a key issue.)
So, e.g., regarding "My argument is that a zygote/fetus is not just human life, but a human life, it's own human being" -- the "it's own[ness]" is irrespective of whether it has a unique genetic code.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And let's not forget Chimera - two eggs can combine to create one individual with the DNA of both. There doesn't seem to be anything distinct and unique about a fertilized egg in that it can be split into multiple individuals or can end up only being part of an individual.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not wedded to the term "moral" in describing parental obligations, by the way. It is a word that has both specific and more loose meanings, and it may or may not be helpful to use.
I use it because it comes from "more," which is Latin for something like "values of character or conduct." It is a technical word in the field of philosophy, and studying and teaching philosophy is the arena where I spent most of the time discussing the morality of abortion.
However, I'm happy just to use the word "obligation" without any qualifiers. I just can't see why we do not have the same obligations to the unborn as we do to born children, if we are discussing them in the context where they are taken to have the same rights and obligations on us. (For me, I do not consider all unborn -- e.g., the blastocyst -- to have the same rights and obligations on us as born children, so it is not a problem for me.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe Belle's argument rests on deaths that can not be prevented.
Flaming Toad is correct, I'm talking about deaths that cannot be prevented without efforts that are beyond the reach of medical science at this time.
For example, I believe that miscarriages should be prevented to the extent medical science allows us to prevent them. Sometimes it's a simple hormone imbalance that can be corrected, or drugs can stop preterm labor. But there are many things medical science cannot presently do, and those deaths that cannot be prevented, can be allowed to occur.
I should have put "unpreventable with current technology" in front of my original statement about natural death, because of course we interfere in natural death all the time. I believe a moral obligation does exist to prolong and protect life as much as possible, including life in utero.
Back to my analogy about the terminally ill - it's all right to allow a person whose heart has entered a fatal rhythm to die without CPR if that is their request, it is not okay to stab them or shoot them. However - unless the person has made those wishes known, you should always do CPR because if there's any doubt, you should come down on the side of protecting life where possible.
Which is why I could never support any type of abortion if I were unsure when life began - I assume life begins at conception because to believe otherwise and be wrong is an untenable situation for me. If I'm not certain, I'm going to err on the side of life.
I believe without a shadow of a doubt that a full term fetus is a living human being before it's born. I spent so much time looking at my twins in utero through ultrasound, I have no doubts at all. They even had distinct characteristics, they slept at different times, one reacted to loud noises more than the other, etc. They were alive and they were people to me. Do I know exactly when they became people? I believe it was as soon as they were conceived, but I can't prove that. But, because I have no proof either way, the safest thing, the thing that protects and honors human life most, is to assume it's at the earliest point they became what they are which is at conception when their unique DNA was established. Identical twins don't need any separate distinction as far as I'm concerned - when it's one embryo (is that the right term or is it blastocyst at that point?) it deserves the respect a human life deserves, when it splits they should be respected as two human lives. I don't see it as a real issue, but maybe I'm not understanding the point CT was trying to make by bringing them up.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I realize I never addressed the points in the original post. I don't approve of using such tactics, myself. I respect their first amendment rights, but even as a staunch pro-life person I would be upset if my kids had to view such signs, so I completely sympathize with the original poster.
I believe in supporting pro-life organizations that care for mothers who need financial and other support to carry their babies to term and care for them (or give them up for adoption). The organization my church sponsors and supports and that my personal money goes toward does no picketing at all. They offer free pregnancy tests, counseling, baby showers to help mothers buy things for their babies, and post-abortion counseling for those that chose not to give birth. I think that's a much better way to spend my time and money than holding up graphic, disturbing pictures where young kids can see them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, I believe that miscarriages should be prevented to the extent medical science allows us to prevent them. Sometimes it's a simple hormone imbalance that can be corrected, or drugs can stop preterm labor. But there are many things medical science cannot presently do, and those deaths that cannot be prevented, can be allowed to occur.
Question, then: should people who do NOT take all the steps medical science allows to prevent miscarriages be found guilty of criminal neglect?
(Assuming, of course, that you believe an implanted fetus is a human being.)
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Question, then: should people who do NOT take all the steps medical science allows to prevent miscarriages be found guilty of criminal neglect?
Yup. Like those who drink and use harmful drugs during pregnancy should be guilty of neglect. Just as if you would find a parent guilty of neglect if they let their child die of a simple infection that was easily cured by antibiotics because they didn't carry them to a doctor.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, where do you draw the line? For instance, what about someone who has a miscarriage after horseback riding?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, first of all....thank you for answering so carefully. This is a touchy subject on several different levels, as we all know. It is good to be able to discuss these things with other people here while still being respectful of each other.
However, I don't agree with your last statement at all. Once you get into deciding what was and wasn't possible to prevent it enters a gray area that profoundly affects the mothers own rights.
We KNOW she is alive. We KNOW she has rights.
And I do not doubt for a second that her rights are being trampled on the second you (or anyone else) get to determine is she acted with enough care during her pregnancy.....if her miscarriage was preventable or not.
The possible psychological damage that could be inflicted just in carrying out an inquest into the matter is disturbing. Miscarriages are painful enough, and to have yourself held to ANY standard of proof after one is....well I lack the words to be honest.
Let's just say it is one of the worst things you could do to a woman who has miscarried.
IMO, of course.
Once again it seems to me the MOTHER'S rights are being held in contempt, all because the potential rights of a fetus are more important. And why is are their rights more important?
Because they MAY already be human beings, at least to some "majority" opinion.
I hate abortions. I understand why they may at times be necessary, but I hate them. To me every abortion is a huge loss, regardless of their state of humaness at the time, because of their potential from the moment of conception.
But I would hate living in a world where a mother would have to "prove" she didn't cause her own miscarriage even more.
That would be inhuman, IMO.
On a more general note:
I just don't see any way out of the fact that a woman has a right to her own body, her own rights, and her own self-determination. I may not like how she lives her life, but I sure the hell don't want the ability to force her into living her life the way I think she should.
Not being sure of something (human or not) should not give me the right to interfere with how someone else chooses to live their life.
Even if I know I would live it better. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, then what is different about the unborn that makes them less of a priority than born children?
If 2 million US children were dying a year for mostly unknown reasons, I can't imagine we'd say they can be allowed to occur just because we presently do not know how to prevent them. It'd be a national emergency, right?
(I know I'm missing something about your perspective, but I also know that repeated questions can feel like one is being harrassed -- if so, please feel free not to answer. I don't want that at all.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Question, then: should people who do NOT take all the steps medical science allows to prevent miscarriages be found guilty of criminal neglect?
It should be noted that this (not taking all the steps medical science allows) is not the standard for criminal neglect.
quote:Belle, then what is different about the unborn that makes them less of a priority than born children?
I still don't see where she has said this is the case, CT.
She has mentioned capability as setting the level of responsibility. There is extensive miscarriage research being conducted, as I'm sure you're aware.
Moreover, miscarriages likely stem from many causes. Vaccines prevent about 2 million childhood deaths a year. There's nothing to say that we won't find analog preventive measures for miscarriage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There is extensive miscarriage research being conducted, as I'm sure you're aware.
Is there really? The dearth of such research has long been bemoaned in the medical literature. Where are you finding an extensive amount? *interested
quote:Moreover, miscarriages likely stem from many causes. Vaccines prevent about 2 million childhood deaths a year. There's nothing to say that we won't find analog preventive measures for miscarriage.
Right. That's what I implied -- at least, if we look for it. But making looking for it a priority isn't consistent with a stance that it just "can be allowed to happen."
--- Edited to add:
We wouldn't (I assume) stand for 2-4 million unexpected deaths of born children every year in the US without actually making the fixing of it a priority, and we wouldn't say it just could be allowed to happen because we aren't sure what is causing it yet.
Again, I am honestly not trying to back anyone up against a rhetorical wall --- not you, not Belle, and not anyone else here. I am honestly trying to understand. This was one of the sticking points for me when I was thinking through the underpinnings of my own anti-abortion stance. For me, I found that I did believe the unborn had less of a claim on us than the born, at least in this aspect, and cognitive dissonance forced me to examine how far I took that difference to extend, and to what extent.
I don't expect everyone to reach the same conclusions (or start from the same perspective, for that matter) as I did. I am very interested in how other people would solve the inconsistencies I couldn't.
posted
This must be said, too: I don't want to dogpile or be abrasive to the people I am speaking with here on this thread (Belle and Dagonee in particular, but everyone, really) both because of general principles and because of the thoughtful, honest, passionate, and considerate manner of those who engage me. Class should be met with class, and those on this thread deserve it.
I'd fall far short of my own standards in a many ways if I didn't do my best to honor that.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, Matt, I'm going to be really busy for the next few days, so I apologize for leaving your statements unanswered. I promise you that I will get you a full response as soon as I can.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with CT, at least as far as my intent in discussing these issues yet again. I usually avoid abortion thread like the plague these days, because I have already firmed up my own thoughts and stance on it.
Also, these discussions tend to bring out the worst in people because it is such a sensitive isuue, and I don't like how most people treat each other in them.
For the most part, this thread has been fairly civil, and I really hope it stays that way. Not because I think we will find a "soloution", but because one fo the only ways to explore these issues is in frank conversation with other people who care , even if they are on the other side of the idealogical fence. Maybe even because they are on the other side of the issues.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there really? The dearth of such research has long been bemoaned in the medical literature. Where are you finding an extensive amount? *interested
I found three studies in about two seconds of googling. Folic acid, alcohol, smoking, and pesticides have all been studied for their effects on miscarriage rates.
quote:That's what I implied -- at least, if we look for it. But making looking for it a priority isn't consistent with a stance that it just "can be allowed to happen."
The words used were "those deaths that cannot be prevented, can be allowed to occur." (emphasis added)
quote:We wouldn't (I assume) stand for 2-4 million unexpected deaths of born children every year in the US without actually making the fixing of it a priority, and we wouldn't say it just could be allowed to happen because we aren't sure what is causing it yet.
But, prior to immunizations, we did "stand" for large rates of children dying from childhood diseases. I'm not really sure what "stand for it" means - certainly neither miscarriages now or deaths to measles, smallpox, etc. then weren't considered good things, and steps were taken to the extent possible to eliminate them. But the point is those deaths occurred and we didn't, as a result, decide that there was a lesser duty to protect children from intentional killing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's just say it is one of the worst things you could do to a woman who has miscarried.
First of all, don't assume I don't know what it feels like to miscarry, or that I'm not sympathetic to how women feel.
I believe that the vast, vast majority of miscarriages cannot be prevented with medical science as it stands today. Therefore, most women who miscarry do so through no fault or nothing they did wrong. Sometimes a pregnancy ends. It's tragic, it's terrible (and believe me I do know what I'm talking about) but there's nothing that anyone did wrong. If someday we do find a way to prevent them better than we have now, I would like to see women take advantage of that treatment and save babies who are at risk of dying due to miscarriage. Let me assure you, had such technology existed, I would have fully availed myself of it.
When I say hold women accountable I'm not speaking of a woman in early pregnancy who has no idea she's pregnant yet and goes horseback riding. I'm talking about people who know they are pregnant and willfully do things that endanger their babies. Smoke, drink, engage in dangerous physical activities with full knowledge they can harm their babies, etc. Sometimes deaths, though tragic, are not preventable - and yet sometimes they are. We should do all we can to prevent those that are preventable and look for more ways to save those we currently cannot. it's not about fault or assigning blame to anyone.
But one thing at a time. Before we start enacting laws that hold a woman accountable for her actions toward her unborn child, I'd like to see us as a country recognize the fetus as a person with the rights and protections that status conveys. Since that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't - if I can indulge in some pessimism, then anything further is just what we're doing here - civil discussion.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I found three studies in about two seconds of googling. Folic acid, alcohol, smoking, and pesticides have all been studied for their effects on miscarriage rates.
Dagonee, we are speaking of 2-4 million deaths per year. The investment in those studies sorts of studies is miniscule. Compare this to research on leukemia, which affects about 2000-2500 children per year in the US. If you would like the numbers, I will certainly find them, but I can assure you that the amount of money spent on childhood leukemia research is many orders of magnitude greater than 1/1000 the amount spent on miscarriage research. [*grin And before I go to the lengths to go digging, I'd want to know that the results would actually matter to someone. If it is a side point, or irrelevant, I simply do not have the time. I have another 4 hours of worktime to put in this weekend!]
And, note, most childhood leukemia is the further sequelae of a genetic deficit. We believe these children are born with a propensity to cancer, that this is programmed into them (as my heart failure at 17 yrs old was destined for me). It is, or would have been, a "natural death."
quote:The words used were "those deaths that cannot be prevented, can be allowed to occur." (emphasis added)
Right. And I still maintain that "We wouldn't (I assume) stand for 2-4 million unexpected deaths of born children every year in the US without actually making the fixing of it a priority, and we wouldn't say it just could be allowed to happen because we aren't sure what is causing it yet."
quote:
quote:We wouldn't (I assume) stand for 2-4 million unexpected deaths of born children every year in the US without actually making the fixing of it a priority, and we wouldn't say it just could be allowed to happen because we aren't sure what is causing it yet.
But, prior to immunizations, we did "stand" for large rates of children dying from childhood diseases.
Not the way we are "standing for" 2-4 million miscarriages a year.
You are right that people may mean different things by "can be allowed to happen." I don't take it that phrase to imply anything along the lines of "must be made a top priority to address," but this might well be what Belle or others do mean by it, or there may be another way they resolve the cognitive dissonance, or maybe there is any host of reasons why they do not see a contradiction here. That's why I am asking, you know.
quote: I'm not really sure what "stand for it" means - certainly neither miscarriages now or deaths to measles, smallpox, etc. then weren't considered good things, and steps were taken to the extent possible to eliminate them. But the point is those deaths occurred and we didn't, as a result, decide that there was a lesser duty to protect children from intentional killing.
And I am not saying that I "as a result, decide[d] that there was a lesser duty to protect children from intentional killing." That's a mistatement of what I said, if you were intending to paraphrase me or summarize my history.
What I said was that "I found that I did believe [on extensive reflection about how I felt about miscarriages that] the unborn had less of a claim on us than the born, at least in this aspect, and cognitive dissonance forced me to examine how far I took that difference to extend, and to what extent."
That is, I didn't come to believe that because I thought it was okay to kill some kids, it should be okay to kill other kids. Rather, I probed why I was much less worried about deaths at one stage of development than at another, and I came to conclude that I didn't see those deaths as equivalent. That was worth thinking about more, to me.
I also stated "I don't expect everyone to reach the same conclusions (or start from the same perspective, for that matter) as I did. I am very interested in how other people would solve the inconsistencies I couldn't." But that interest wouldn't outweigh my desire for civility with my friends and to refrain from causing more grief in the world.
posted
One difficulty with making abortion illegal is finding a way to teach boys and young men how to treat women appropriately despite the fact that laws say that women have no right to control what happens to their bodies. If you support abortion in the case of rape or incest, with all the proof of rape needed being the woman's claim to her doctor, then I might agree with you. Might.
By "appropriately" I mean "as intellectual equals".
This post is in response to Belle's.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I believe that the vast, vast majority of miscarriages cannot be prevented with medical science as it stands today.... If someday we do find a way to prevent them better than we have now, I would like to see women take advantage of that treatment and save babies who are at risk of dying due to miscarriage.
Would you agree that in making decisions on how to dispense public resources for research into illnesses/deaths of children, no distinction should be made between born and unborn children?
(I am not trying to trap you -- actually, I honestly expect you to say "yes," as I have found you to be quite consistent in your beliefs, as far as I can understand. And if you say "no," I certainly would assume you have good reasons for making that disctinction here (even if not elsewhere), regardless of whether you choose to share them.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One difficulty with making abortion illegal is finding a way to teach boys and young men how to treat women appropriately despite the fact that laws say that women have no right to control what happens to their bodies.
I'm really confused as to how making abortion illegal means women have no right to control what happens to their bodies. Do you think men have no right to control their bodies?
CT, I'm sorry because it does look like a trap. I mean, if I say yes, put public resources into the research to save the unborn I'll be countered with "So you'd let a five year old die of a disease that could be cured if only research had been one on his disease instead of research into miscarriages." Sorry, not going to play that game.
Let me just say this - we need more money for medical research across the board, into protecting the unborn, the newly born, the young, the adult, the middle-aged, the elderly. I want all of it to be studied and I want medical science to one day cure cancer, cystic fibrosis, and the common cold. But the fact of the matter is that not every disease gets the same attention and funding. What gets funding is what gets good PR. I had colorectal cancer - the number two cancer killer behind lung cancer. Yet where I received chemo all I heard about was fund raisers for breast cancer, all I saw were pink ribbons everywhere. That's just the way it works. It's unfortunate, because I'd love to see us eradicate every deadly disease and every cause of miscarriage but it ain't gonna happen.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: CT, I'm sorry because it does look like a trap.
*nods
I can see that, and I certainly respect your decision not to answer. All I can do is acknowledge that, and give you the space what you say without further pressure. I will still post my thoughts about it, too, just as you, although I do not take us to be arguing in opposition, but as presenting different perspectives.
quote:I mean, if I say yes, put public resources into the research to save the unborn I'll be countered with "So you'd let a five year old die of a disease that could be cured if only research had been one on his disease instead of research into miscarriages."
I wouldn't have said that to you, although it would indeed have been the logical consequence of the statement. It would follow from viewing the unborn as no more or less important than born children.
Some people might hold that this should be disconcerting because we should be taking prevention of that unborn death as seriously and with as much import as the born. I don't, myself, but that is because I don't take it a a maxim that our obligation to the born and the early gestational unborn are the same.
quote:Sorry, not going to play that game.
I'll hold myself to gently saying that it isn't a game to me, but rather a matter of grave importance. I take the matter quite seriously, as I have a (small, but heard) voice in making funding decisions.
quote:Let me just say this - we need more money for medical research across the board, into protecting the unborn, the newly born, the young, the adult, the middle-aged, the elderly. I want all of it to be studied and I want medical science to one day cure cancer, cystic fibrosis, and the common cold. But the fact of the matter is that not every disease gets the same attention and funding. What gets funding is what gets good PR. I had colorectal cancer - the number two cancer killer behind lung cancer. Yet where I received chemo all I heard about was fund raisers for breast cancer, all I saw were pink ribbons everywhere. That's just the way it works. It's unfortunate, because I'd love to see us eradicate every deadly disease and every cause of miscarriage but it ain't gonna happen.
I'd certainly agree with you on the first part. For the latter, I'd say that what is may not be what should be, if we take the issue seriously. And I am indeed concerned just as much as with what should be as what is, because both determine what will be.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, how would you feel about allowing doctors to perform abortions as long as the woman was willing to claim rape, without actually requiring her to tell anyone other than her doctor?
What I find interesting about people with "religious" objections to abortion is that some of them will literally murder to stop abortions....yet the Bible never mentions it at all.
Funny, you'd think God would have mentioned something worth killing over.
Edit: I think I need to break out the spellcheck.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all steven, I don't think I've mentioned God in any of my posts. I also never, ever even hinted I think violence is appropriate in the pro-life movement. I believe I specifically addressed that I only supported groups that did not picket, did not harass clinics, and focused on doing constructive things to help mothers.
I do not appreciate your attempting to paint me as someone who believes preventing abortion is worth killing over, that's disingenuous on your part and very offensive.
Secondly, I've addressed how I feel on the rape issue before and see no need to go into it right now, mainly because I have a final exam to take in about an hour and need to leave. I'll return later.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it is worth, I have never, ever found Belle to be anything but against unnecessary violence and cruelty, however it may come. She also puts tremendous time and effort into trying to make the world around her better for everyone, both by her own efforts and by supporting others that do so, as well.
She is both consistent in her pro-life stance and a very classy lady, to boot.
---
Edited to add: a final on Sunday morning?! That is unnecessary violence! You have my sympathies and crossed fingers, though I am sure you do not need them.
---
Edited again to add: steven, as I am not in the demographic, I cannot help you with that question. I do suspect that it comes across to many as having more going on than just a mere simple question, but that is also beyond the pale for me to address. Were I to consider myself "pro-life," I'd be leery of answering, too.
As a general rule here, I'd like the conversation to stay as civil and mutually respectful as possible. I am not a Janitor, though -- but I do have a vested interest, even if no authority. (And yet I myself smell of traps, as well!)
Furthermore, we've already gone so far outside PSI's fervent request. I am sorry, PSI.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, we are speaking of 2-4 million deaths per year. The investment in those studies sorts of studies is miniscule. Compare this to research on leukemia, which affects about 2000-2500 children per year in the US. If you would like the numbers, I will certainly find them, but I can assure you that the amount of money spent on childhood leukemia research is many orders of magnitude greater than 1/1000 the amount spent on miscarriage research.
I don't see why there should be a linear relationship between number of victims and research dollars spent. We certainly take other factors into account, including emotional impact on those who know the victim and suffering incurred prior to death. There's also an element of "fashion" to what diseases are given the most research funding.
quote:And, note, most childhood leukemia is the further sequelae of a genetic deficit. We believe these children are born with a propensity to cancer, that this is programmed into them (as my heart failure at 17 yrs old was destined for me). It is, or would have been, a "natural death."
We try to stop some deaths. No one here has denied that.
quote:And I am not saying that I "as a result, decide[d] that there was a lesser duty to protect children from intentional killing." That's a mistatement of what I said, if you were intending to paraphrase me or summarize my history.
I was not intending to paraphrase you. I was trying to indicate why the fact that some people in a given class die natural deaths is not a compelling reason to me (and, presumably, Belle) to allow intentional killing of that class of people.
quote:That is, I didn't come to believe that because I thought it was okay to kill some kids, it should be okay to kill other kids. Rather, I probed why I was much less worried about deaths at pone stage of development than at another, and I came to conclude that I didn't see those deaths as equivalent. That was worth thinking about more, to me.
After thinking about it, I came to a different conclusion: that "worry" is not a proper measure of worth of the being worried about or the effect of the deaths of such beings.
Moreover, I don't see an examination of the effect of a being's death on others - whether that effect is motivating the spending of resources to avoid it or the mourning of it afterwards - as a valid indicator of the measure of a death or a factor in determining "equivalence" of deaths. Much more important are the means of a death - including intent - and reasons for it.
We had a decent discussion about the principles underlying that once, although half of it is missing now.
quote:I also stated "I don't expect everyone to reach the same conclusions (or start from the same perspective, for that matter) as I did. I am very interested in how other people would solve the inconsistencies I couldn't." But that interest wouldn't outweigh my desire for civility with my friends and to refrain from causing more grief in the world.
In short, I don't see inconsistencies here, so I probably can't address your interest.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) And yet it would have been a "natural death" if someone hadn't intervened.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I usually avoid abortion thread like the plague these days, because I have already firmed up my own thoughts and stance on it.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
You have my sympathies and crossed fingers, though I am sure you do not need them.
