Would you force someone to do something to save someone else?

[Trailblazer]

because the fetus is a potential person, not a person yet.

I guess I have to keep repeating myself.
Human life comes into being at the moment of conception.
Whether it is viable outside the womb or not is irrelevant.
There is no reason to think it will not become a person.
So to say it might not live to be born is a weak argument.

A Scientific View of When Life Begins

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

 

[charlie sc]

I did not want to get pregnant, give birth, or have a child, even after I got married. I used a good form of birth control which is considered about 96% effective, but I knew there was always some risk of getting pregnant. When once I told my doctor I thought I might be pregnant, he said I would do okay if I had to raise a child. You see, I did not want children because I was emotionally abandoned as a child and I did not think I could ever raise a child because of my own childhood. My husband had the same kind of childhood, so we both knew that having children would not be a wise choice.

But as luck and predestination would have it, I never got pregnant. Now I have no children and it is too late to have any. But it must have been the Will of God that I never got pregnant with as many times as I put myself at risk.

My older sister who was also emotionally abandoned as a child never wanted children either but she had to promise her second husband that would have at least one child, and she did when she was about 40 years old. That child was the love of her life and she never regretted it for one minute. Unfortunately, my sister died of cervical cancer when she was only 53 years old, but her husband and daughter were very close so she was well cared for.

Thank you for sharing and it sounds like you have an interesting life. Consider, however, your perception of pregnancy and having children is quite unique. You seem to think it's a gift, but not everyone sees it that way. Not everyone will have your unique perspective of things.

When my sister was 17 years old, before she became a Baha'i, she accidentally got pregnant and had an abortion. That was a decision she regretted for the rest of her life. The doctors said she got cervical cancer because of the HPV virus she contracted when she had sex as a teen.

I understand, but some person may get an abortion and be happy over this decision.

It isn't for most. Most people do not like the restrictions but I never had any problem with them. I would never have sex out of wedlock even if I was not a Baha'i.

Yes, I got that

I guess I have to keep repeating myself.
Human life comes into being at the moment of conception.
Whether it is viable outside the womb or not is irrelevant.
There is no reason to think it will not become a person.
So to say it might not live to be born is a weak argument.

A Scientific View of When Life Begins

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

I'm not sure if I should read this. It's from a dubuous website. The link you have has 2 references and from what little I read they even put Fox News in the, supposedly, abstract section. If you have something a bit more academic, I'll definitely take a look.

 

[Kilk1]

I wouldn't call it killing and I don't see how you would either. You don't actually kill the leech and it cannot survive without you. You have no control over its physiology. You had to insert that you left it to die, which implies you gave yourself some kind of responsibility over it. However, my hypothetical did not have any other extension.

You did say, "If you remove it, it dies." So all I meant by leaving it to die is that you remove it, which leads to its death. I get that it isn't killing directly, though.

I would save them, but I wouldn't expect another person to. I find this analogy interesting. Please answer this: do you put responsibility in the person that being held onto to save them?

Yes, I put responsibility on the person being held onto to save them. Letting go of someone who's hanging on to you and is about to fall is amoral at best, immoral at worst.

Yes.

Did they consent to saving you?

It's clear that we're disagreeing at the worldview level. My guess is that your moral standard could be stated like, "Do unto others as they do unto you." In other words, it's morally permissible to let go of someone and let them die unless they consent to save you in a similar situation.

On the other hand, a Christian like myself would have a moral code closer to, "Do unto others as you want them do unto you." Jesus taught that "whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 7:12, NKJV, emphasis mine). "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise" (Luke 6:31, emphasis mine). I would want someone to save me, so I should do likewise without any regard to whether I made a prior agreement with the person.

Since this debate likely needs to be held at the worldview level, we may need to broaden the discussion. In fact, if you remember me, we actually were having a discussion like that a while back, lol. My last post was here: Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion. You can reply to the post and we'll continue where we left off if you want.

 

[Kilk1]

I believe that Jesus was the Only Way to the Father during His Dispensation, but I do not believe that Jesus was the Only Way for all time.

I don't know what the Baha'i faith believes, but is this the position they hold? When did Jesus' dispensation end?

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you for sharing and it sounds like you have an interesting life. Consider, however, your perception of pregnancy and having children is quite unique. You seem to think it's a gift, but not everyone sees it that way. Not everyone will have your unique perspective of things.

My whole point is that I did not see it as a gift. That is why I took every precaution to prevent getting pregnant.
What is a gift for some people is not a gift for others. I doubt most people would consider our 11 cats to be a gift, but we do.

I understand, but some person may get an abortion and be happy over this decision.

The point is not whether they are happy or not. Is life all about personal happiness? I sure hope not. I know it isn't for me, but then I believe in God and take that seriously.

I'm not sure if I should read this. It's from a dubuous website. The link you have has 2 references and from what little I read they even put Fox News in the, supposedly, abstract section. If you have something a bit more academic, I'll definitely take a look.

It looks pretty academic to me.

*Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know what the Baha'i faith believes, but is this the position they hold? When did Jesus' dispensation end?

Baha'is believe that a former Dispensation ends whenever God sends a new Manifestation of God (also referred to a Messenger or a Prophet). We believe that Moses was a Manifestation of God, so when Jesus appeared the Dispensation of Moses ended. Likewise, when Muhammad appeared, the Dispensation of Jesus ended, and when Baha'u'llah appeared the Dispensation of Muhammad ended.

The idea is that only one Dispensation can be in force at any given time in history, but that does not invalidate any of the Dispensations that came before, as they will always be the Truth from God, since they were revealed by God.

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

 

[charlie sc]

You did say, "If you remove it, it dies." So all I meant by leaving it to die is that you remove it, which leads to its death. I get that it isn't killing directly, though.

Indeed, but I'm unsure if it's even indirectly killing. If we were to rephrase and say if you removed yourself from it, is it still indirectly killing? All I've done here is move the words around but the scenario is still the same. Let's think of a more human scenario. Let's assume someone is depressed and they say to their girlfriend that they'll kill themselves if they leave. The girlfriend, or partner, leaves. This person who said they'll commit suicide now commits suicide. Is the partner indirectly killing them?

Yes, I put responsibility on the person being held onto to save them. Letting go of someone who's hanging on to you and is about to fall is amoral at best, immoral at worst.

Consider then, in what hypothetical its amoral and immoral. And, which of these are deemed worthy of punishment or enforceable responsibility.

It's clear that we're disagreeing at the worldview level. My guess is that your moral standard could be stated like, "Do unto others as they do unto you." In other words, it's morally permissible to let go of someone and let them die unless they consent to save you in a similar situation.

Kinda. There may be implicitly implied morals. For instance, living among other people, we have all implicitly agreed, even if we know it or not, not do unnecessary harm unto other people. Nonetheless, I don't know of any implicitly implied morals where one person has to save another. To be fair, I can think of extreme situations where this applies and ones agreed upon before hand. However, having these kind of enforceable morals opens up a can of worms. One I can think of is it makes a necessarily voluntary and self-rewarding act now compulsory. I can think of numerous bad consequences of this.

I would want someone to save me, so I should do likewise without any regard to whether I made a prior agreement with the person.

Interesting, but would you enforce someone to save you or someone else? Want/expect and enforcing behaviour are two different things.

Since this debate likely needs to be held at the worldview level, we may need to broaden the discussion. In fact, if you remember me, we actually were having a discussion like that a while back, lol. My last post was here: Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion. You can reply to the post and we'll continue where we left off if you want.

Sure, let's start it up again.

 

[charlie sc]

My whole point is that I did not see it as a gift. That is why I took every precaution to prevent getting pregnant.
What is a gift for some people is not a gift for others. I doubt most people would consider our 11 cats to be a gift, but we do.

Yeah lol

The point is not whether they are happy or not. Is life all about personal happiness? I sure hope not. I know it isn't for me, but then I believe in God and take that seriously

Yep, you do

It looks pretty academic to me.

*Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

Ok... Most scientific papers are written by numerous doctors and specialists in the field. This website is not one of those and it appears to be more like her blog. The thing you've linked is not published, or been through the scientific peer review process and the two references there are from her. It's as academic as a blog post is.

 

[columbus]

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

I commonly annoy the knee jerk baby killers by pointing out this rather elementary biology. It's funny how often science goes out the window when it interferes with your ideology.
Tom

 

[RESOLUTION]

What are you talking about now?

Cannot keep up with he conversation? Why not read the posts and you would know what is being spoken about.

 

[RESOLUTION]

You miss the point.

Of course removing the fetus is killing it. Unless the fetus has already died then no amount of excuses changes the fact
you have murdered a fetus. As legal as that may be. What about women who mis-carry who want their babies? They have my sympathy but
women who elect to have an abortion they chose it. The fact is women who have more than one abortion should be made to pay.
teenagers who are children are a different matter the parent makes their choice.



The pill might fail if you forget to take it, or you use antibiotics but in those cases the morning after pill or extra protection is
available. Always be safe.



That is the chance you take. Your responsible for your own life and your actions you know things can go wrong so the morning
after pill is available so use it.



LOL is that really all you have?


There is no rational approach just an honest and well thought out reason for human beings being responsible in their actions.

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So it went over your head. Do not worry if it above your level of understanding no one will hold it against you, using such a childish reply.

 

[columbus]

This is an interesting argument but I'm not sure how much it applies to pregnancy, fertilisation and sex.

Pregnancy is unique. No other circumstance is quite like it.
But the basic concept I am referring to is "If a competent human makes a choice that impacts someone else, they've taken on the responsibility for the outcome of that choice."
Even if they later wish that they had chosen differently.

There's also the rights of the female's body.

I am totally about people's rights to their own bodies, regardless of gender.
If a female doesn't want to have potentially fertile sex she doesn't have to.

But I'm also about taking responsibility for the outcome of choices, freely made, that impact someone else who didn't even exist at the time of the choice, much less give consent. Pregnancy is a unique event. So the rules that apply to kidney donations and treating parasitic illnesses don't necessarily apply to the creation of a new human being.
Tom

 

[RESOLUTION]

Nope. If someone answered no and then no, or yes and then yes, they wouldn’t be logically inconsistent = irrational. The OPs questions is about irrationality. If you don’t get it, it’s not my problem.

Your problem is that you cannot adopt the above and relate it to choices made for abortion. You cannot have it both ways.
But should a man have a right to opinion over what a woman can and cannot do with her body?

Eh, you didn't understand my point. I'll create an analogy I don't particularly like but... Imagine a leech attached to you. If you pull it off, it dies. If you leave it, it lives. Are you killing it by removing yourself from it or does it just die without you?

The only way you could use that example is referring to a leech with a leech. Human beings and their babies are not attacking each other and the mother is not at risk from her baby.
Rather the baby is at risk from the mother. Could a leech live on another leech and survive? If you want to use something to represent another make sure it is even, and represents the same thing.

I don't know how you want me to reply to your judgemental and apathetic attitude to the problems females go through. You're entitled to your opinion.

I have 5 sisters - one who was made pregnant at 15 years of age from a rape. When it was discovered it was too late and she attempted suicide having undergone a massive change in
her outward appearance and attitude. My niece was raped she has a heart problem and became bi-polar due to the dire affect on her mental health and now has MS. I am more than aware
of the way women function and the problems they face.. My sister had a boy a son who is now 36 years of age and an hard working young man who respects women. Happily married and nothing
like the man who raped his mother. Strong females do what they believe is right for them. Killing babies isn't one of them. But they have their choice. A late termination could have happened for
my sister but she did what was right for her and our parents did not force her to have the abortion. Babies are innocent we need to take responsibility for our actions. No need for abortions
in this day and age, take precautions. Judge all you want but try walking a mile in the other persons shoes before you do.

 

[JJ50]

I will reiterate that a woman should have the absolute right to have an abortion, until the foetus is viable, but preferably in the first trimester. The morning after pill is freely available so she should take if she thinks she might have had unsafe sex. Having said that it is always best to take the necessary precautions if a pregnancy is to be avoided.

 

[columbus]

There are few problems with this argument, because the fetus is a potential person, not a person yet.

I disagree.
Arbitrarily deciding which human beings are persons and which aren't is one of the most pernicious sources of immoral behavior.
"Person" is simply too subjective to be especially useful in this context.
Similarly, I avoid the word "murder" because the word means too many different things to different people.

I stick to more precise terms like "human being", "kill", "homicide", and such.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok... Most scientific papers are written by numerous doctors and specialists in the field. This website is not one of those and it appears to be more like her blog. The thing you've linked is not published, or been through the scientific peer review process and the two references there are from her. It's as academic as a blog post is.

Okay, find some scientific papers that refute it and then we can talk.

 

[charlie sc]

Okay, find some scientific papers that refute it and then we can talk.

What? You want me to find a paper that refutes the blog you linked?

 

[Trailblazer]

What? You want me to find a paper that refutes the blog you linked?

Yep.

 

[charlie sc]

Yep.

As I recall, you said you have a MA in psychology?

 

[Trailblazer]

As I recall, you said you have a MA in psychology?

Yes, I do, but what does that have to do with biology?