Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of my coworkers recently donated part of her liver to her child. She was not pregnant at the time but was told if she was pregnant she might not be able to safely continue the pregnancy. Under the new Georgia law a pregnant mother in the same situation would not be able to choose to save her living breathing child without risking jail time for potentially harming the fetus.
That is truly an interesting scenario. Which reminds me of this chart.
False dilemma fallacy, like virtually all other "gotcha" ethical questions.
You left out:
Save neither.
Save both.
Ignore fire.
Put out fire and save both plus building.
Toss stuff into fire and cackle madly.
Call 9-1-1 and have them rescue everyone.
Etc * infinity because there are infinite number of human responses to crises.
And there is no "right" answer to what is so inherently an individual and subjective thing as a person's moral and ethical code. The original post proclaiming that there is only one right answer is the height of both arrogance and ignorance.
That's why both sides of the abortion debate can hold educated, sober, well reasoned stances on the issue and both make a compelling argument for their side. It's inherently individualistic and completely subjective, this thing we call person-hood. It is a set of beliefs, customs, cultural mores, etc. One cannot assign a binary evaluation to something with infinite possibilities.
But grats OP, the text of the original post might be the most hamfisted piece of pure condescension of the year, and not just on this forum, but maybe the entire Internet.
No, I completely disagree. The OP is attempting to peel back all the complicated layers, and get people to be honest about the value of a fertilized egg (or 1000 of them) compared to the life of one child. Of course it is a hypothetical scenario, but such are often used in philosophical discussions. Your stating that there are other options negates the simplicity of this particular aspect of the abortion issue.
Such exercises can be useful in finding common ground. I do believe that the vast majority of people, if honest about the fire scenario, would say the child's life has more value than any number of fertilized eggs. And most people would also be in agreement that at some point later in pregnancy (though the specific point may not have consensus), the growing organism has developed to the point that abortion should no longer be a legal option (except in cases of medical necessity). Finding common ground is a good thing.
Uh, I believe that life starts at conception and that embryos are kids/babies. However, I am not about to use pro-life (which I also am) junk science to manipulate/control women. You should have added "try to save both" for the polling options!
Every rational argument supports the position that life begins at conception.
Can you think of a sound, consistent argument for why life might begin at some other time and under conditions other than conception?
Of course the correct answer is to save the child.
A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically.
No one actually believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies or children. Those who claim to are trying to manipulate and control women.
Life begins at conception. Basic biology. That does not mean that life deserves protection.
Every rational argument supports the position that life begins at conception.
Can you think of a sound, consistent argument for why life might begin at some other time and under conditions other than conception?
I'd love to hear one.
"Life" is irrelevant to the debate only personhood under the law
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Life begins at conception. Basic biology. That does not mean that life deserves protection.
Both sperm and egg cells are alive before conception which is why "life" in a biological sense is irrelevant to the abortion debate. Unless we want to go down the Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" route.
apparently sarcasm goes completely over your head, even with emoticons being used. as for destroying embryos, perhaps they should be brought to term ultimately. as i noted, embryos can be preserved for the future.
Just because you think it is sarcastic doesn't mean it is any less the truth. You didn't address the actual point which is the Alabama law allows for the destruction of embryos from IVF clinics. That means the law is not about saving embryos, it is about forcing women to give birth for choosing to have sex. That is punishment.
"Life" is irrelevant to the debate only personhood under the law
Both sperm and egg cells are alive before conception which is why "life" in a biological sense is irrelevant to the abortion debate. Unless we want to go down the Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" route.
The thread title uses the word "save" which implies action based on motive and volunteerism, so this is a question of morality.
No one is morally required to run into a burning building to save a child, but many would do so and such qualities in a person would be admirable.
Of course, the flip side of that coin is that actions taken to destroy a child are clearly immoral.
So the question becomes under what circumstances will this child and/or the "1,000 viable human embryos" be destroyed such that one or the other must be saved?
As for sperm and egg, neither is a child, fetus or embryo.
Left alone, they will continue to be sperm or egg for a few hours/days until they naturally expire.
An embryo may or may not attach to the uterine wall.
If no action was taken to prevent the embryo from attaching, then no immoral act has taken place.
Once attached, if the embryo dies from natural causes, no immoral act caused the child's death.
However, if action is taken against the innocent and defenseless child as it develops in the womb, that is clearly immoral since it violates the principle of do no harm.
"Life" is irrelevant to the debate only personhood under the law
Both sperm and egg cells are alive before conception which is why "life" in a biological sense is irrelevant to the abortion debate. Unless we want to go down the Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" route.
False. We are talking about life that has all the components that make up a human being. What people my age were taught before it became a political issue. And you all complain the right is anti science.
Nothing more irritating than science deniers.
So let me clarify what should not need clarifying: an individual life begins at conception.
False. We are talking about life that has all the components that make up a human being. What people my age were taught before it became a political issue. And you all complain the right is anti science.
Not false, earlier only "life" was mentioned, you added the context of "only life that has all the components to make up a human being" just now because it was pointed out that "life" was not relevant to the situation. What goalposts should we shift next?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 05-22-2019 at 01:24 PM..
The thread title uses the word "save" which implies action based on motive and volunteerism, so this is a question of morality.
TBH it isn't a very well worded question because of the reason you just pointed out. The point of the question is to find out what people value to a higher degree - 1 live baby or 1000 embryos. That said a better way to phrase the question is just like that:
"What do you believe is more valuable 1 live human baby or 1000 viable embryos?" because it removes the baggage that "Which would you save" brings into the discussion and allows less semantic nit picking - which is often what people would much rather do when they know the alternative of answering the actual question will point out inconsistencies in their position.
Given the question:
What do you believe is more valuable 1 live human baby or 1000 viable embryos?
Anyone who does not answer "the 1000 embryos" has no logically consistent ground to call the embryos "babies"(which is really just a clumsy "framing" attempt anyway), since they are clearly not equivalent at even a 1000 to 1 scale inside their own mind.
You could repeat this question for each week of the pregnancy and it will eventually yield a point for any person answering it at which the answer is no longer the live baby - which would be the logical inflection point within their own beliefs at which the scale has started to equalize.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 05-22-2019 at 01:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/IMG]
