• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pro-Lifer Dilemma

IIRichard said:
Sperm are single cells which do not have a full compliment of genes and do not have any mitochodria. They are so far removed from "human life" that only a Catholic Theologian who's never experience nocturnal emission would make such a statement.

IIRichard
Click to expand...
Really?

life4qg.jpg



So #2 and #3 are life but #1 isn't because #1 lacks a full complement of genes and mitochondria? What difference does it make? #2 can't think, can't sense light, smell, taste or sound.
 
TragicMonkey said:
People in comas can't, either. Are they not alive? And the ones who recover are reborn?
Click to expand...
:mad: Damn you monkey, damn you all to hell!

I don't know. I'm willing to leave out the senses but it degrades my comparison. Damn it.
 
AWPrime said:
But their brains can process meaning full data.
Click to expand...

Are trees alive? Are viruses? Are jellyfish, and if so, is a jellyfish one living thing or many living things?

Determining when life begins requires being able to define what is and isn't life, which is trickier than it sounds.
 
RandFan said:
:mad: Damn you monkey, damn you all to hell!

I don't know. I'm willing to leave out the senses but it degrades my comparison. Damn it.
Click to expand...

Bah. There's really no way to determine WHEN a life becomes "human" life, or at least begins to have "rights". We're stuck with having to determine an arbitrary line between the two states (non-human and human.) Personally, I have no clue...

Oh... and to the OP: I'd eat the baby and save the embryos for sale on the black market. There.
 
Zep said:
Yes, to a potentially realistic example, is all. Didn't require a response particularly.

Carry on with the main thread!
Click to expand...

since far fetched hypothecals annoy you, lets just rephrase that.

Five embryos or a two year old child. You can only save one (I leave it to your imagination to come up with a rationale such a decision might have to be made, if you need one).

Pick. Should be easy if you really do believe the pro life line.
 
It's really not all that difficult to come up with an operational definition of life, even if we have a few grumbly marginal cases. The point of the OP isn't to call into question when life begins, but to show that the belief that every living member of the human species is morally equivalent leads to wildly counterintuitive priorities.

And people do like pulling a Kirk when presented with this kind of problem. "This isn't realistic! I'd save them all! I'd hide the embryos in the baby's mouth, sneak past the thought experiment customs officers and become a hero to millions!"
 
Belz... said:
Bah. There's really no way to determine WHEN a life becomes "human" life, or at least begins to have "rights". We're stuck with having to determine an arbitrary line between the two states (non-human and human.) Personally, I have no clue...
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree that we can't precisely determine when exactly life begins which is why I used the analogy of trying to determine when Day begins and night ends. It's a gradient. I don't think one arbitrary standard is equal to any other. Most people would be against abortion in the third trimester. Most support it in the first. The arbitrary standard should reasonably lie in between.

Oh... and to the OP: I'd eat the baby and save the embryos for sale on the black market. There.
Click to expand...
I hear they taste like chicken. Why does everything taste like chicken except tuna fish and... never mind.
 
The problem with dilemas is that an answer doesn't mean anything to anyone. People's choices don't convince me of what to choose, and they don't even tell me much about the answerer.
 
strathmeyer said:
The problem with dilemas is that an answer doesn't mean anything to anyone. People's choices don't convince me of what to choose, and they don't even tell me much about the answerer.
Click to expand...
The point of ethical dillemas is to challenge people's notions about right and wrong. Dillemas can reveal a bias or faulty thinking. If you answered the dillema honestly it could very well reveal something about you.
 
A house is on fire. You only have time to go to a single room.

In one room, a 2 year old girl. In the other, 10 healthy human beings who would save 5 embryos instead of the little girl.

That's my answer.
 
even though they say life begins at conception... not one pro-lifer has said they would save the embryos.

instead they attack the logic of the scenario.

very interesting.:eye-poppi
 
The interesting point to me is... you can still be anti-abortion (even against the legality of abortion) without equating an embryo with an already-born. I'm surprised none of them take this way out. They'd rather grumble about the scenario than abandon the absolutist position that an embryo has precisely the same right to life as an existing human being. Arguing that one has almost the same right to life is still a valid argument aganist abortion for convenience. But, of course, abandoning the absolute means there might possibly a compromise that satisfies most people. Can't have that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom