The thing I find most interesting about this whole exchange is that Wilbur heroically maintains his position but he lacks one thing in is argument, the ethics of the issue. He scientifically validates his view point by researching information that allows him to classify a embryo as non human. He considers the embryo a clump of cells that have no right to exist beyond the rights the mother who carries the embryo chooses give it. Itís of more importance to establish the scientific definition of the embryo having human life than it is to recognize that it is alive. It feeds and needs shelter from the elements so it is alive. Since it carries half the DNA of the mother it can be thought of as an organ within the mother's body more than a parasite.
Wilbur asks himself is it scientifically acceptable to terminate an embryo and not if it is right to terminate an embryo. This sidesteps the whole moral issue of abortion and regulates it to a scientific one. It is scientifically ok to end the existences of the fetus because it doesn't feel pain and can't think as a real human does. In short, the embryo is being objectified in order to disassociate the responsibility of pre-maturely ending a life, a life that if left to its own devices would probably become a human. What I glean from all this is Wilburís point of view is kill it before its human and it scientifically acceptable.
I never grieved for the loss of an appendix, our 19 month old still born was another matter. The fetus looked exactly like a baby to my eyes. I'm certain that it too could have felt pain had we inflicted any pain.
Wilbur chooses to deny the morals of the issues and will not be moved from it.
Maybe he should look at the girls who regret making that decision. I'd bet none of those grils regret having any other "elective" surgeries.
Scientifically we can tell when a fetus is capable of personhood.... when consciousness begins... That is the scientific component. Philosophy helps us determine why... science tells us when. The ironic part is my arguments are extremely similar to every pro-lifer here, including yours. Your 'scientific' claim is that 'personhood begins at conception'. Mine is it begins later as brain activity begins. Ultimately we both rest on some philosophical reasoning to determine why these things are 'valuable'.
I say pro-lifer arguments are the dehumanizing ones because they trivialize real persons while placing undue importance on things like strands of DNA... as if it is equal to a person. Completely disconnected from the well being and suffering of real live persons.. and actually makes one truly believe that a few strands of DNA or a few cells are worth more than the person who must support them... its really seems very perverse when you look at it honestly from that perspective.
Last edited by wilbur; 12-27-2008 at 02:06 AM.
Last edited by wilbur; 12-27-2008 at 02:07 AM.
Ok, that means I can get an abortion, right? No. Wilbur you place more "value" upon the mother than you do a clump of cells. Fine and I applaud you for your consistency. However where we differ is that I simply cannot dismiss the value of a "clump of cells". Where there is a potential for life my default position is always on the side of the "potential life" because it is too precious of a thing to just throw away as a result of someone making a choice that had negative consequences.
Maybe we will have to respectfully agree to disagree here. You are a skilled and consistent debater Wilbur, however I cannot subscribe to your ideas.
For the record I do not say that personhood begins at conception. I say that they right to become a person begins at conception and only nature can take that right away. The moral and ethical thing to do is to let that clump of cells develop to it's fullest potential. The embryo was created by the mutual sharing of DNA between, more often than not, to consenting individuals who knew the potential out come of their actions was a child. They willingly rolled the biological dice and created life. Now they have the responsibility to keep the bargain they made with nature and take care of the developing human at least until he or she is born. Anything less is self-centered behavior out of control and to advocate such a position is to advocate freeing people from the consequences of their actions.
Last edited by FlaGator; 12-27-2008 at 07:50 AM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|