Abortion II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Of course, money spent to preserve the dignity of one human life is money not spent to preserve the dignity of another.

My point is that we are always choosing one life over another, we just don't always realize it.

There is a dignity which is inherent to human life, regardless of its circumstances. That dignity can only be snuffed out by killing a person, and it is that dignity which I am talking about. As being the most fundamental dignity, and that upon which any other is built, I regard it as the most important.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Not seeing it, Gwai. What is dignified about being alive, as opposed to dead?

Dignity may be an intrinsic quality of some people, but surely not all. And i know people who have preserved their dignity past death, as well.

No equivalence.

I like Jon's cartoon.

[inked]

Great cartoon, JS!!!

SACA, there was a culture of power which held that fundamental dignity did not exist for those designated sub-humans. The status of birth or personhood was not raised at all because the members of the subclass were all automatically deprived of their humanity. They were designated life not worth living and a drain on society. So these volk were taken out of the institutions and living spaces accorded them hitherto and decimated in a systematic fashion that allowed the further development and perfection of the implementation of the methods of mass removal of the unfit. These techniques were later applied to ethnic groups en masse.

Of course, this was justified on the contention:"Dignity may be an intrinsic quality of some people, but surely not all."

Given the Thucydian need to repeat history when one is unaware of it (and apparently when one is very aware of it!), would you like to justify how and on what grounds you propose to distinguish dignity amongst those who possess it those who surely do not?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Inked, I don't "propose to distinguish dignity..."

I'm making an observation. You can't do science without observation, but I'm not even claiming to do science. I'm just observing that "dignity", qua "dignity" is not a defining characteristic of the human condition. It is not, therefore, relevent to Gwai's argument.

Some of the questions here seems to be "what are the essential elements of life?" and "what are the essential elements of human life" and "what are the dangers to society of ending a life" and "under what circumstances would society consider the benefits of ending a life were greater than the dangers." Follow me?

So, for example, If you say, "Human life always outranks animal life." then you might say, "Punishing an individual for burning a dog alive is stupid. It's just a dog." Most people are more nuanced about it. They say, "Eating a cow is alright...it's just a cow, but I never had a cow as a pet."

As far as abortion goes, I can identify several potential areas of harm, some societal, and some individual.

Those would include "Harm to the mother as a result of the abortion" "Harm to society as the result of abortion" (loss of the potential citizen), "Harm to the potential citizen directly." "Harm to the mother as a result of NOT having the abortion", "Harm to the society as a result of not permitting the abortion" "Harm to the potential citizen as a result of not having the abortion."

Gwai's suggestion was intended to establish that death diminishes the amount of dignity available to the society, and that therefore society loses everytime there is a death. I don't think his assertion proves the case, because I've known, personally, a number of instances where there was no coorellation between life and dignity or between death and loss of dignity.

So, his math was life=dignity ~~~ death=loss of dignity

I see examples where the relationship between life or death and dignity = n and, therefore, I reject his axiom.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Ha! I can so relate to that cartoon...

[inked]

SACA,
I don't think that was the argument made at all.

Every human life has innate dignity (because made in the image of God).
Careless killing for whatever reason diminishes the killer, defacing the image.
Persons who so do impair the dignity of human life or deny it.
The persons so killed and their killers are deprived of dignity inherent in them.
All humanity suffers.

You seem to be treating it as a quantitative argument of some sort.

Of course, if there is not inherent human dignity, "there is only power and those afraid to use it."

Have a preference?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Why would 'innate dignity" be related to "made in the image of God"? You're cherry picking again.

God would be described as having several innate characteristics. Humans would be described as having several innate characteristics, some of which might overlap with God or each other, and some of which would not.

For example, you would look at a room full of people and say, "Some of these people are Saved." while a Christian Universalist would look at the same group and say "All of these people are Saved." But neither of you would apply the word "Saved" to God. Yet, all would be "made in the image of God." "Saved" would not be a characteristic shared by all, however.

I do not believe that "innate dignity" is a defining characteristic of the human condition, anymore than I believe eye color is. So this is all by the by, when we're attempting to establish what societal harm "not being born" represents.

There are a number of ways someone might not be born, including celebacy and birth control. Are all those heinous as well?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

For a view on that check out blueletterbible.com and "rip open pregnant women". Neither the prophets nor the LORD were very restrained about the heinousness of that.

Only when it was happening to Israel- when the Israelites were doing it to others, both God and his followers were enthusiastically in favour.

[inked]

Citation(s) and context for that, GM, please.

SACA, every person is made in the image of God, male and female. Not cherry-picking at all. A bold, flat-out assertion.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

SACA, every person is made in the image of God, male and female. Not cherry-picking at all. A bold, flat-out assertion.

Inked, are you really having trouble reading what I said, or are you just being obtuse rhetorically?

I have not contested that every person is made in the image of God during this debate. I have challenged the notion of "inherent human dignity" as applied to this question.

Are you suggesting that one of the characteristics of God is "inherent human dignity"? If not, then that is not one of the "made in the image of" characteristics.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

There is a dignity which is inherent to human life, regardless of its circumstances. That dignity can only be snuffed out by killing a person, and it is that dignity which I am talking about. As being the most fundamental dignity, and that upon which any other is built, I regard it as the most important.

You're still choosing one form of preserving life over another.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The money that would be saved by killing prisoners would not be spent on saving other lives. It would go to some budget or other, but in the vast majority of cases not to actual preservation of life. So, unless there's something I don't know about the allocation of funds after an execution, what you say would only be true rarely, and then only by chance.

Sorry, sis, I didn't see your post. I'm rather surprised you'd say that.

Dignity may be an intrinsic quality of some people, but surely not all. And i know people who have preserved their dignity past death, as well.

That is impossible. People do not exist after death, or at any rate do not exist in such a way that we can know them. As such, we could not possibly know if they retain their dignity after death.

But I am quite surprised that you would deny that there is inherent value in human life. Does value only come from exterior sources? Is there no worth in a person, merely because they are a person? I say that there is worth in a person, in even an animal, a plant, or an inanimate object, solely by virtue of the fact that they exist.

For the record, I'm not on abortion. I've wandered off topic onto Capital Punishment.

There are a number of ways someone might not be born, including celebacy and birth control. Are all those heinous as well?

Why do you ask these questions? Your an experienced and intelligent woman; you know what the answer is. I honestly don't see the point to such questions.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I don't know what other people's answers are.

I know, of course, what the answer is.

You seem to know a lot of things, for certain.

You know the spirit does not survive death.
You know live people can't communicate with people who are no longer alive, and vice versa.
You know that dignity=value=dignity, which I hadn't seen expressed yet, here in this thread.
You know that one method of not being born is more significant than any other method of not being born.
You know that the value of 'life' extends, apparently, to an animal, a plant, and an inanimate object.

I don't know any of these things. That's why I have conversations.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't know what other people's answers are.

I know, of course, what the answer is.

All right then. Celibacy and birth control stop something from coming to be, rather than destroying something that is.

You seem to know a lot of things, for certain.

No, I believe a lot of things. I make no claims of certain knowledge.

You know the spirit does not survive death.

I never said that; I said that people do not exist in the same way. Do you disagree?

You know live people can't communicate with people who are no longer alive, and vice versa.

I don't think it's absolutely impossible, but it is at the very least rare enough to be dismissed from a general consideration of matters.

You know that dignity=value=dignity, which I hadn't seen expressed yet, here in this thread.

How would you differentiate them? Are you thinking of dignity as just being a sort of solemn admirability?

You know that one method of not being born is more significant than any other method of not being born.

It's not the being born. It's the passing from existence to non-existence.

You know that the value of 'life' extends, apparently, to an animal, a plant, and an inanimate object.

Value of existence, I would say. Basically, the upshot of what I'm saying is that all things deserve respect, in virtue of the fact that they are. Does that seem unreasonable?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

All right then. Celibacy and birth control stop something from coming to be, rather than destroying something that is.

Ah. Here we are, back at "these collections of cells are already a person."

That's really a sticking point, when it's not a shared hypothesis.

No, I believe a lot of things. I make no claims of certain knowledge.

Good. Progress is possible, then.

I never said that; I said that people do not exist in the same way. Do you disagree?

You said,"People do not exist after death, or at any rate do not exist in such a way that we can know them. " The first part was "the spirit does not survive death" and the second part was

I don't think it's absolutely impossible, but it is at the very least rare enough to be dismissed from a general consideration of matters.

Rising from the dead after 3 days is much rarer than people reporting contact with spirits, wouldn't you say?

How would you differentiate them? Are you thinking of dignity as just being a sort of solemn admirability?

No, not at all. But there are a whole lot of things to value in humans, dignity being only one aspect. And not a necessary aspect, as I've said.

It's not the being born. It's the passing from existence to non-existence.

Ah. Back here. Get's monotonous.

Value of existence, I would say. Basically, the upshot of what I'm saying is that all things deserve respect, in virtue of the fact that they are. Does that seem unreasonable?

Are we gonna go all Buddhist, here? (And further, if I'm to take seriously the "inanimate object" remark.) Does "respect" mean "vowing ahimsa" or does it get us right back to "okay, pass the bacon but control women's reproduction?"

These are tough questions, Gwai.

[inked]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Inked, are you really having trouble reading what I said, or are you just being obtuse rhetorically?

I have not contested that every person is made in the image of God during this debate. I have challenged the notion of "inherent human dignity" as applied to this question.

Are you suggesting that one of the characteristics of God is "inherent human dignity"? If not, then that is not one of the "made in the image of" characteristics.

SACA, we seem to be talking past one another. THE REASON individual human beings have inherent dignity is because they are made in the image of God. They have inherent human dignity from the moment of fertilization onward because at that moment the inherently human comes into existence. A sperm is human derived but has no independent capability for reproduction and the same is true of the egg - each having merely one-half the chromosomal complement necessary to a human being. However, once fertilization takes place and the gamete nuclei fuse, voila, a human being is! Prior to that time there is no human being. After that fusion, a human being - you and I once were that. All living breathing walking talking individuals were also. Human dignity begins when humans do.

Inherent human dignity is certainly part of the Godhead since God contains and surpasses the All-that-is. And, from a strictly JudeoChristian worldview, the entirety of existence has whatever dignity it may be said to possess by virtue of its creation and in its proper degree. So, you have understood what I said in your negation of it.

Are we clearer now?

Within that Creation different entities differ in the degree with which they reflect that inherent dignity accorded to them. Humanity is the apex and most like God because directly in His image. Therefore, save the humans from fertilization onward!

This provides a rational ground for preserving lives and the administration of justice: humanity is made in God's image.

And on reading the subsequent posts, I see I have apparently restated what GW has.

Just let me comment that when the Science Channel or Discovery Channel or History Channel show ultrasounds of in utero animals they always refer to it as THE ANIMAL IN STUDY. I wonder why they don't talk about potential elephants or horses, for instance, instead of elephants and horses. It constantly amazes me that in all the animal kingdom save humans we acknowledge reality BANG! from the moment of fertilization onward - even on Meerkat Manor!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

SACA, we seem to be talking past one another. THE REASON individual human beings have inherent dignity is because they are made in the image of God. They have inherent human dignity from the moment of fertilization onward because at that moment the inherently human comes into existence. A sperm is human derived but has no independent capability for reproduction and the same is true of the egg - each having merely one-half the chromosomal complement necessary to a human being.

Are you getting this from a bio book or the Bible? If God is in each of us, when does it become an issue of biology? You have 23 pairs of chromosomes, you're made in God's image. Don't rabbits? That explains Bugs Bunny, I guess. But while you're still at 23, you're just junk.

However, once fertilization takes place and the gamete nuclei fuse, voila, a human being is! Prior to that time there is no human being. After that fusion, a human being - you and I once were that. All living breathing walking talking individuals were also. Human dignity begins when humans do.

If they're capable of independent reproduction, that is. Isn't that part of the criteria you set, above? A sperm is human derived but has no independent capability for reproduction and the same is true of the egg - each having merely one-half the chromosomal complement necessary to a human being. So chromosomal abnormalities would be an appropriate reason for abortion, right? It's that 23 pairs that we're using as the threshold.

Inherent human dignity is certainly part of the Godhead since God contains and surpasses the All-that-is. And, from a strictly JudeoChristian worldview, the entirety of existence has whatever dignity it may be said to possess by virtue of its creation and in its proper degree.

Didn't the Creator create everything? Shall we start the debate over the inherent dignity of the slug?

Are we clearer now?

I haven't felt unclear, yet, but I'll keep you apprised.

Within that Creation different entities differ in the degree with which they reflect that inherent dignity accorded to them. Humanity is the apex and most like God because directly in His image. Therefore, save the humans from fertilization onward!

Again, where does this idea come from?

Just let me comment that when the Science Channel or Discovery Channel or History Channel show ultrasounds of in utero animals they always refer to it as THE ANIMAL IN STUDY. I wonder why they don't talk about potential elephants or horses, for instance, instead of elephants and horses. It constantly amazes me that in all the animal kingdom save humans we acknowledge reality BANG! from the moment of fertilization onward - even on Meerkat Manor!

Well, I don't have cable, so I can't speak to that. It's TV...they say a lot of things.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Ah. Here we are, back at "these collections of cells are already a person."

That's really a sticking point, when it's not a shared hypothesis.

I'm not even there yet. But it seems to me that this distinction between something that is and something that is not is pretty fundamental.

You said,"People do not exist after death, or at any rate do not exist in such a way that we can know them. " The first part was "the spirit does not survive death" and the second part was

"Or at any rate" is a modification of what has gone before.

Rising from the dead after 3 days is much rarer than people reporting contact with spirits, wouldn't you say?

That doesn't seem terribly relevant to the question at hand; or am I missing something?

No, not at all. But there are a whole lot of things to value in humans, dignity being only one aspect. And not a necessary aspect, as I've said.

Ah. Back here. Get's monotonous.

Again, I'm not at the point of personhood.

Are we gonna go all Buddhist, here? (And further, if I'm to take seriously the "inanimate object" remark.) Does "respect" mean "vowing ahimsa" or does it get us right back to "okay, pass the bacon but control women's reproduction?"

Quit trying to run ahead of me, sis! Remember, I'm not even talking about abortion! I didn't even get here from abortion! I'm just trying to lay some basics. Is that permissible, or does everything have to directly and immediately pertain to a question people fight about?

[inked]

Now whose being rhetorically obtuse, SACA?

Sperm = one-half chromosomal complement
Egg = one-half chromosomal complement

Sperm + Egg = full chromosomal complement

Sperm not a person
Egg not a person

Full chromosomal complement = a person

Now, just for funsies, substitute your favorite animal in front of either and you can get biology 101 to your heart's content, but you won't get a person, you'll just get the animal. It's only with humans that you get persons.

Hope that helps. You won't need cable for that!!!

[GrayMouser]

On the stem-cell issue, as I understand it the situation is that in-vitro fertilization necessarily creates excess embryos - it's a complicated process, you can't be sure which ones will be viable, the rejection rate for even viable embryos is high- so the prospective parents end up with many more embryos (about 20 extra?) than they need, which are frozen for possible later use. There are what, about 400,000 of them in the US alone.

In most cases, these embryos end up being destroyed after the couple decide they no longer want them ( or, if you prefer, these babies are murdered).

One proposed alternative is "snowflake babies"; implantation of these embryos in women who can't get pregnant normally.

Problems with that are

a)prospective "adopters": there aren't that many women out there; most couples would like to have at least one of the partners as a biological parent.

b) prospective donors: the great majority of couples who undergo in-vitro fertilization do not want to give their embryos away to strangers- they would rather dispose of them or even have them used for stem-cell research.

c) even the "snowflake baby" process ends up destroying large numbers of the embryos used; there's about a 90% failure rate. I recall reading somewhere that to produce the child sitting next to Bush in his press conference required thirteen embryos before they achieved success.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, they are opposed to the "snowflake baby" process even if it uses embryos that are already fertilized and frozen, and believe it should be made illegal:

"The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;38 this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.39 "

Dignitas Personae

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121201.html

Presumably, the thousands and thousands of frozen embryos must be maintained in that state in perpetuity- or at least till the Second Coming.

So if you do believe that these embryos are human beings, then it seems that the only morally acceptable position is that of the Catholic Church- ban in-vitro fertilization.

However it appears that most of the politicians (like George Bush ) who come out against embryonic stem-cell experimentation don't take this position, because they know it's political suicide.

Their position would appear to be that these embryos are actual human beings, but it's okay to murder them as long as you don't experiment with the remains.

Actually the Bush position was even stranger- he said that these embryos are human beings but it's okay to kill them for experimental purposes as long as you do it with private or state government funding.