Interesting Moral Dilemma for Pro-Lifers

[Flappycat]

Why would he suggest money as a system of measurement that I would use to determine the value of an unborn child?

You were making conflicting statements. You were being vague. It seems that you have more hysteria in you than conviction.

I believe all life is valuable and worth saving, but again, this situation only allows that one of the two choices is saved.

There are 602 entities here, though.

Why should a woman have the choice to kill her child?

Purely for her amusement.

 

[linwood]

Why would he suggest money as a system of measurement that I would use to determine the value of an unborn child?

It`s not odd at all.
He wanted to know what value you put on an embryo.
Just like the system we use for money you could have used the same system to determine the value.
100 pennies = 1 Dollar
X Embryos = 1 infant.

If my choice was the embryos, you wouldn't extrapolate that I believe that human life DECREASES in value as it develops, would you?

No, because that would be irrational.
From the perspective of someone who believe life begins at conception 600 embryos has far more value than one infant.
WE are not talking an equal trade off here, we won`t know what the trade off is until we know what value you put on an enbryo.
Regardless, you`ve already stated the value of an embryo is lower than an infant

Why should a woman have the choice to kill her child?

You have made it abundantly clear in this thread that you do not value an embryo as you value a child.
I don`t know if you`re just screwing around or truly cannot see that you`ve done this.

As Flappy said..

"It doesn`t appear that you believe what you think you believe."

I place a higher value on the life of one infant who is self-aware and can feel pain than on 600 embryos who are not and cannot....It is not that they have no value. It is that in order of priorities, they have less value....as does everything that is not chosen first.

Completely understandable but you are not claiming they both hold the same value while trying to rationalise why you wouldn`t save the embryos.

When do these embryos gain value?
When do they catch up to the infant in value?
Does an embryo in a test tube hold the save value to you as an embryo within a pregnant woman?
Why or why not?

 

[Fluffy]

If we replace the example with 600 embryos versus 1 embryo or 600 babies versus 1 baby then the situation is simply a question of number of lives saved.

As a pro-lifer, human life is established to begin at conception. Therefore, embryos and babies become completely interchangeable. As most people would equate the life of a baby with the life of a teenager, a pro-lifer equates the life of the embryo with the life of a baby. The only rational option, given this assumption, would be to save the embryos.

To defuse the "potential" argument: Tomorrow, after the fire, all 600 embryos are going to be implanted in 600 healthy women and brought to term. They all therefore have a very high potential of becoming babies.

Edit: Another way to defuse the "potential" argument: Since the life of the baby is worth more than the embryos, would it be morally acceptable to remove an embryo from a women's womb and freeze it rather than abort it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That same argument works for abortion.

Not so.

We have to consider the developmental process and how it increases the probability of the survival of the embryo. For example - embryos aren't surgically aborted, fetuses are.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If we replace the example with 600 embryos versus 1 embryo or 600 babies versus 1 baby then the situation is simply a question of number of lives saved.

As a pro-lifer, human life is established to begin at conception. Therefore, embryos and babies become completely interchangeable. As most people would equate the life of a baby with the life of a teenager, a pro-lifer equates the life of the embryo with the life of a baby. The only rational option, given this assumption, would be to save the embryos.

To defuse the "potential" argument: Tomorrow, after the fire, all 600 embryos are going to be implanted in 600 healthy women and brought to term. They all therefore have a very high potential of becoming babies.

It's not rational to stupidly ignore the fact that only about 30% of implanted embryos are carried to term. Ususally the embryos are implanted several at a time to ensure success. We should care no more about frozen embryos than we do about embryos that are naturally expelled from the woman's body.

Embryos are not people. Infants are. Save the one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When do these embryos gain value?
When do they catch up to the infant in value?
Does an embryo in a test tube hold the save value to you as an embryo within a pregnant woman?
Why or why not?

Embryos have value, but will not have the value of a human person until they are carried to term and are a human person.

Value of fetuses increase with development and is based on potential expression of humanity.

The value of a embryo in a woman has more value because it is part of a fully developed human body. The embryo in a test tube has derived value as the product of humanity. It's an object only.

 

[linwood]

We have to consider the developmental process and how it increases the probability of the survival of the embryo. For example - embryos aren't surgically aborted, fetuses are.

In this case human life doesn`t begin at conception it begins when an embryo becomes a fetus.
This is that elusive scale of value yet again.

Embryos have value, but will not have the value of a human person until they are carried to term and are a human person.

If they do not equate to a human life then one must determine why their "less than human value" overrides the wishes of the human woman carrying them.
Again, one must determine their value before this branch of this discussion can continue.

Rememeber, this thread is a question to the pro-life position.
It is most definately the pro-life position that an embryo is the equivelant of a human.
This is easily evidenced.

Value of fetuses increase with development and is based on potential expression of humanity.

So an due to the very properties of an embryo it would be nearly valueless considering its the very first stage of development.
If the value of an embryo,fetus,human is exponential according to it`s developement then an embryo has less value than a fetus and an infant has less value then a 12 year old.

Yes?

The value of a embryo in a woman has more value because it is part of a fully developed human body. The embryo in a test tube has derived value as the product of humanity. It's an object only.

I disagree.
Again the only difference between an embryo in a canister and an embryo in a womb is geography.
An embryo in a canister is also part of a fully developed human being.
It is also true that an embryo conceived within a womb is a product of humanity.
In order for the pro-lifer to have a rational train of thought they both must have equal value or we are doomed to be the victims of any number of unrealistic rationalizations.

You too are devaluing those lives created through invitro.

If you follow your rationalization through then a 24 year old conceived through invitro has less value than a 24 year old conceived through copulation.
This can be fixed by stating that all bets are off at the moment of birth and all living breathing human life has equal value as human life .
To do this however leaves you without an equitable standard to devalue the frozen embryo.

It is apparent that many pro-lifers do not believe human life begins at conception regardless of what they say.

Their actions speak louder.

 

[mr.guy]

Why would he suggest money as a system of measurement that I would use to determine the value of an unborn child? Even if he didn't mean that (which he never clarified, even though I commented on it as soon as he said it), doesn't it seem like a rather odd suggestion?

Enough.

Your accusations have so far been ignored for, so far as i can see, one of two reasons:

1)You are unable to reconcile the hypocrisy of your position; your desperate rationalisation has extended to such ridiculous detraction (as predicted) that direct query has proven completely fruitless to your tactic of hen-pecking the irrelevant, contorting the obvious into baseless hyperbole, and complete avoidance of direct, topical reply.

2)Your reading comprehension is pitiably stunted; if not further maimed by a puppy's attention span. To continue to press your limited faculties by demands of relevant, thoughtful reply is to visit cruelty upon you.

Honestly, i'm still undecided as to which is presently applicable.

 

[evearael]

You too are devaluing those lives created through invitro.

So, by stating that with a choice between saving the life of my toddler and saving the life of twenty people on a bus, I would choose my toddler, I implicitly devalue the lives of the twenty people on a bus?

It is apparent that many pro-lifers do not believe human life begins at conception regardless of what they say.

So, would you state that I don't consider the twenty people on the bus alive, because I chose my child over them?

Embryos have value, but will not have the value of a human person until they are carried to term and are a human person.

I tend to agree with this, but would draw the line at viability, not to term. I do believe that life begins at conception, but I do not feel that he or she is a person until viability.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In this case human life doesn`t begin at conception it begins when an embryo becomes a fetus. This is that elusive scale of value yet again.

Quite right. It is possible, however, to be "pro-life" in the sense that you do not support abortion and not hold to the indefensible belief that life begins at conception.

If they do not equate to a human life then one must determine why their "less than human value" overrides the wishes of the human woman carrying them.
Again, one must determine their value before this branch of this discussion can continue.

One can be against abortion morally and yet unable to defend it legally. I agree that women should have full control over their bodies, having the choice to abort but should not.

Rememeber, this thread is a question to the pro-life position.
It is most definately the pro-life position that an embryo is the equivelant of a human.
This is easily evidenced.

As long as you can recall that there is more than one way to responsibly approach this complex problem.

So an due to the very properties of an embryo it would be nearly valueless considering its the very first stage of development.

If the value of an embryo,fetus,human is exponential according to it`s developement then an embryo has less value than a fetus and an infant has less value then a 12 year old.

Yes?

That is pretty much my argument, and as people are able to better observe and learn about the developmental process, I posit that surgical abortions will loose popularity. I also do not draw distinction between an infant and a twelve year old. Once the human is born, it is fully human with all the value of the best of humanity.

I disagree.
Again the only difference between an embryo in a canister and an embryo in a womb is geography.
An embryo in a canister is also part of a fully developed human being.
It is also true that an embryo conceived within a womb is a product of humanity.
In order for the pro-lifer to have a rational train of thought they both must have equal value or we are doomed to be the victims of any number of unrealistic rationalizations.

Being a part of another human being is an important geographical difference! No one's personal rights are invaded when a testtube is moved from one area of the lab to another, but to forcefully move a woman is abuse!

An embryo in a canister is the product of humans like skin or eyes for transplant. It is a medical product. We can move and manipulate skin or eyes without consent of anyone when they are a human product and not part of a person - provided, of course, prior consent of the donor is given. Surely you can understand the value of this metaphor.


You too are devaluing those lives created through invitro.

If you follow your rationalization through then a 24 year old conceived through invitro has less value than a 24 year old conceived through copulation.
This can be fixed by stating that all bets are off at the moment of birth and all living breathing human life has equal value as human life .
To do this however leaves you without an equitable standard to devalue the frozen embryo.

No. You can only conclude this if you irrationally, illogically, and irresponsibly apply my view to what I have safegaurded it against. You are irresponsibly applying your misinterpretation of my view of unimplanted, undeveloped embryos an implanted embryo that is fully developed. You observe above that I give value on a sliding scale of development, and obviously the fully developed person has the most value, regardless of being implanted in a woman - which I drew no distinction.

It is apparent that many pro-lifers do not believe human life begins at conception regardless of what they say.

I agree, but you have not shown this with regard to my view.

 

[Quiddity]

The intent of the hypothetical situation is to have the reader add more value and meaning to one vs. the other. It is clear, that such a scenario is to boost pro-choice by devaluing the embryos. Because we all know that people tend to attach more to a baby vs. an embryo. Rather ingenious method to promote. It’s an excellent way to corner pro-lifers……way to go.

 

[Fluffy]

It's not rational to stupidly ignore the fact that only about 30% of implanted embryos are carried to term. Ususally the embryos are implanted several at a time to ensure success.

That fact was already implicitly taken into account. Saving 30% of 600 lives still equates to more lives saved than 1.

Additionally, surely this is irrelevant if you also hold that "Embryos are not people"?

We should care no more about frozen embryos than we do about embryos that are naturally expelled from the woman's body.

If we do not care about a frozen embryo or an embryo naturally expelled, why then should we care for the embryo that is aborted?

 

[Melody]

If they do not equate to a human life then one must determine why their "less than human value" overrides the wishes of the human woman carrying them.
<snip>
It is apparent that many pro-lifers do not believe human life begins at conception regardless of what they say.

I do believe human life begins at conception. Choosing to save the life of one infant does not mean I don't consider the 600 embryos life. It merely means I've placed a higher value on the life of that one infant to 600 fertilized eggs who may or may not become human infants depending on the whim of their donor, the success of the medical procedure and a little bit of luck.

If the life of the human woman is in peril by carrying that life, then the life of the woman, in my opinion, comes first. Nobody should have to sacrifice their own life unwillingly for another's life.

My problem with abortion is that we have relegated that life to a non-entity so that it can be flushed away with absolutely no concern or remorse that it was ever a living being and many times for no other reason than it's an inconvenience. The "wishes" of a human, when it's not a matter of life or death, should never override the right to life of that other individual.

 

[mr.guy]

If we do not care about a frozen embryo or an embryo naturally expelled, why then should we care for the embryo that is aborted?

From what i can understand, the more "artificial" exposure laid upon an embryo, proportional devaluation and inviability is inherited.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That fact was already implicitly taken into account. Saving 30% of 600 lives still equates to more lives saved than 1.

Additionally, surely this is irrelevant if you also hold that "Embryos are not people"?

You will find that I am consistent in the application of my logic. Although the 30% may become human after a successful implantation, they are not currently human beings as the infant is and therefore incomparable in worth and status as a human being with all the dignity and value that humans inherently have. The unimplanted embryo, whilst with the potential of human dignity, simply does not have it and no amount of potential can add up to actual human dignity.

If we do not care about a frozen embryo or an embryo naturally expelled, why then should we care for the embryo that is aborted?

I did not say that we do not care about them. We should treat them with the same respect that we would other forms of human tissue like eyes, skin, kidneys, etc. The infant must be saved.

Embryos aren't aborted. Fetuses are. We have to recognize the developmental process.

 

[mr.guy]

Embryos aren't aborted. Fetuses are. We have to recognize the developmental process.

A worthy distinction, but so far too advanced for this thread; a fetus is not in question when debating embryonic stem cell research or the ethics of the morning after pill.

I agree, that the OP does not easily lend it's argument directly to abortion; but it helps illustrate how the pro-life movement can undermine certain aspects of it's own touted rhetoric.

 

[Quiddity]

A worthy distinction, but so far too advanced for this thread; a fetus is not in question when debating embryonic stem cell research or the ethics of the morning after pill.

I agree, that the OP does not easily lend it's argument directly to abortion; but it helps illustrate how the pro-life movement can undermine certain aspects of it's own touted rhetoric.

I advise you not lump us all together like that. The movement is just that "a movement". The conclusions and situations are based off of their own personal world view. A good discussion would be where the pro life movement agrees and disagrees.

 

[mr.guy]

I advise you not lump us all together like that. The movement is just that "a movement". The conclusions and situations are based off of their own personal world view. A good discussion would be where the pro life movement agrees and disagrees.

Of course, victor. I make no gridlocked statement of the "pro-life worldview", which is obviously diverse among it's subscibers.

However, the value of embryos as equivolent to "developed" humans is, where proposed, generally disingenuous. Considering the potential depth and scale of objections available to abortion, neither side should have much use for what amounts to a (popular) lie.

 

[Quiddity]

Of course, victor. I make no gridlocked statement of the "pro-life worldview", which is obviously diverse among it's subscibers.

However, the value of embryos as equivolent to "developed" humans is, where proposed, generally disingenuous. Considering the potential depth and scale of objections available to abortion, neither side should have much use for what amounts to a (popular) lie.

How can such a subjective word as "value" be disingenuosus?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A worthy distinction, but so far too advanced for this thread; a fetus is not in question when debating embryonic stem cell research or the ethics of the morning after pill.

I agree, that the OP does not easily lend it's argument directly to abortion; but it helps illustrate how the pro-life movement can undermine certain aspects of it's own touted rhetoric.

It is an important distinction because it is an important premise in distinguishing between an embryo and an infant. If we can recognize the difference between an embryo and a fetus, surely we can recognize the greater difference between an embryo and an infant.