Interesting Moral Dilemma for Pro-Lifers

[mr.guy]

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

When it's too casually put next to the word "equal".

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]When it's too casually put next to the word "equal".

I value blacks as much as whites.
Kinda like that?
In that case I'm totally disingenuous......

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]When it's too casually put next to the word "equal".

Seriously, is that really it?

Your condoning it because it's "too casually" placed by another word?

 

[Pah]

...

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.

So many of the pro-life crowd say that cloning from an embryo is bad, bad, bad. Why would that be the case if it is an object?

 

[Ðanisty]

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.

Well, I don't disagree that an embryo is a life, I simply disagree it is a life that holds any great value and I wouldn't consider it an "individual" by a longshot. Let me put it this way (and this may sound quite offensive to people, but I don't know how else to say it). I place the value of an embryo somewhere between the value of a spider and the value of a lizard. If these things inconvenience me, then i will certainly have a a pest control person come into my house and flush them out.

 

[linwood]

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 believe it lends itself to abortion perfectly.
During the entire first 8 weeks of any human pregancy it is an embryo that is held in a womans womb not a fetus.
This is when most abortions are performed.

The point is that pro-lifers don`t value an embryo as they value human life.

The learning experience this has given me is that pro-lifers attach more value to even a fetus the farther along it gets in development so truly they don`t even attach the same value to a fetus as they do a living human.

The battle cry that "Life Begins at Conception!!"
Or "It`s not potential life it is human life!!" is nothing more than emotional PR.

It`s false even in their own minds, the thing is that they don`t seem to know their own minds.

This thread has illustrated that.

 

[linwood]

So many of the pro-life crowd say that cloning from an embryo is bad, bad, bad. Why would that be the case if it is an object?

And what about invitro stem cell research?

Whats the problem of the embryo is nothing more than an object.

It just doesn`t add up in a rational manner?

 

[mr.guy]

Your condoning it because it's "too casually" placed by another word?

Vic,

Claims of equality that are not adhered to or seriously observed are not demonstrations of equal value, as previously stated.

 

[mr.guy]

Angellous, Linwood,

The only reasons i object to the immediate "leap" is

1)The sparse participation of pro-life advocates
2)The hard-held argument of "viability"

I only propose that a general adherence to the OP's (supposed) "non-viable" embryos for the purpose of extracting better articulated response.

On that note, i'll not raise hell about it otherwise...

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I would wager to say he mentioned money because you didn't seem to understand the concept of a value system. In other words, I think he was using small words and familiar concepts so you wouldn't get confused and so you couldn't further claim you didn't understand what a value system is.

Well thanks for patronizing me, but I do understand what a value system is. I simply find extremely difficult if not outright impossible to ascribe such a system (most of all money) to determining the value of a human life.

Of course not...because there were 600 embryos and if you believe that unborn life is equal to born life,

Define "equal"...equal in what way, by what standard?

Because it's not a person

Why not?

and it feeds off her body like a parasite. It's a living organism that fastens itself to her insides and sucks out her nutrients for survival.

An infant basically does the same thing, aside from not being physically attached to the mother anymore. So is an infant not a person either? Or is personhood purely based on whether or not you are physically attached to someone else? I guess siamese twins aren't people either.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

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.

Awww, that's sweet. I'm really touched. Simply because I disagree with you and you can't understand where I'm coming from means I must be a hypocrite with limited mental faculties. I guess when you can no longer reply directly to what I say you resort to patronization (if not outright insult).


FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

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.

So again, you want me to base the intrinsic value of a human life off of the money system...If you can't see the oddity of that, then I guess there's no point pushing the issue.

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.

Now it's your turn . "Far more value" according to who or what? What makes you draw that conclusion?

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.

Ugh. As I already explained, the hypothetical in this thread is NOT the moral equivalent to an abortion. Danisty was referencing the choice to abort a child in the womb, she was not referring to frozen undeveloping embryos. Thus my objection.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Quiddity]

I believe it lends itself to abortion perfectly.
During the entire first 8 weeks of any human pregancy it is an embryo that is held in a womans womb not a fetus.
This is when most abortions are performed.

The point is that pro-lifers don`t value an embryo as they value human life.

The learning experience this has given me is that pro-lifers attach more value to even a fetus the farther along it gets in development so truly they don`t even attach the same value to a fetus as they do a living human.

The battle cry that "Life Begins at Conception!!"
Or "It`s not potential life it is human life!!" is nothing more than emotional PR.

It`s false even in their own minds, the thing is that they don`t seem to know their own minds.

This thread has illustrated that.

What did I tell ya guys...
Talk about PR......intention has become clearer to me...

 

[linwood]

So again, you want me to base the intrinsic value of a human life off of the money system...If you can't see the oddity of that, then I guess there's no point pushing the issue.

This isn`t capitalism, P&L, or placing a monetrary value on a human life.
This is an example of fractions.
Keep harping on this though.
It`s a better strategy than continuing with the actual OP.

Now it's your turn . "Far more value" according to who or what? What makes you draw that conclusion?

The facts, the evidence, the premises before me.

*Pro-Life advocates continuously state that human life begins at conception.
*The canister holds 600 conceived human lives (from a pro-life view)
*The infant is one human life.(From anyones view)

The pro-life advocate chooses the canister because according to their worldview the canister is more valuable than the infant


IF a human life begins conception 600 concieved human lives hold more value than one human life.

Pro-Life advocates have already stated their standards of measuring value here.
They have repeatedly stated...

1 Embryo = 1 Human Life

They have stated this over and over and over again.

This means that anyone who chooses the breathing infant over the canister of 600 embryos does not truly hold the worldview than 1 Embryo = 1 Human Life.

Otherwise the value of human life is measured exponentially according the the length of devolopment from Zygote to Breathing infant and perhaps beyond.

This is a Pro-Choice worldview yet it seems to some degree to be a standard ALL of the Pro-Life advocates adhere to also.
They just don`t admit to it.

Ugh. As I already explained, the hypothetical in this thread is NOT the moral equivalent to an abortion.

It is indeed the moral equivelent if one holds the worldview that life begins at conception.
There is no logical rational difference.

There are emotional/instinctual differencs though.

 

[evearael]

I`ve been on these boards for a long time.

It`s odd I`ve never seen you actually contribute anything other than sarcastic remarks to a discussion that directly confronts your dogma.

Please at least attempt to have courage for your convictions.

They`ll let anyone moderate this joint huh?

That is not even remotely appropriate.

 

[linwood]

That is not even remotely appropriate.

That would be a subjective opinion.

It`s been noted.

 

[Ðanisty]

That is not even remotely appropriate.

Perhaps not, but I've noticed the same trend.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hi, guys! Just popping in to please ask everyone, if they have an issue with someone or their actions, to either PM them or Todd about the matter.

 

[Ðanisty]

I'm sorry guys. I need to clarify because I did not intend to agree that Victor shouldn't be a moderator or that he contributes nothing. As it turns out, I misunderstood his intentions in posting in this thread in the first place. I'm just a moron wacked out on Vicodin right now.:sorry1:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So many of the pro-life crowd say that cloning from an embryo is bad, bad, bad. Why would that be the case if it is an object?

If an embryo is an object - a medical product of human cells like skin and other medical products and not a person, then theraputic cloning would be fully sanctioned. I fully support it, but given that we can harvest stem cells from other sources without cloning cheaply and efficiently, we should persue those avenues of research to further establish the argument for the need of therapeutic cloning. Cloning humans is sort of a pipe dream right now...