Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split and merged]

[Rosy]

Re: Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split from Christianity thread]

JFYI Jay covered this before I think, saying animals had no soul and they dont go to heaven (dont tell my wife there is no such thing as "puppy heaven")

Thanks T74. All creatures aren't created equal it seems and yet again God is portrayed in a less than favourable light in my eyes. I wonder why he went to so much trouble to gather all the animals on the Ark. I wonder what the Buddhist monk's principals are based on. They don't even condone swatting a fly or mossie.

I'd prefer to go to puppy heaven than human heaven I reckon. :hearton

 

[Djevv]

Re: Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split from Christianity thread]

Out of interest djevv, do you apply your principals in regard to killing to other living creatures or only to humans? Are you comfortable with killing insects, vermin, animals for human consumption etc? Am interested to know whether God would value human life above the lives of his other creatures.

There is a scripture passage dealing roughly with this issue. It is from Matthew 10:

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[d]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

From this two things are clear.

1. God cares very deeply about His creatures. I think animals should be killed humanely when only it is necessary. I eat meat.

2. God does not consider humans and animals the same value.

As for animals and Heaven. As they have not sinned you can expect them there. Hopefully not mosquitos though.

 

[Stripes]

Re: Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split from Christianity thre

If a human with a soul is created at the moment of conception, how do you explain embryos which split after conception creating two or more separate people? Or how do you explain two embryos fusing into one (chimeras)?

Outstanding question Duckman. This explains exactly why the soul could not possibly be created (or incarnated) at the moment of conception. It has to be around the time of birth.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Re: Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split from Christianity thre

If a human with a soul is created at the moment of conception, how do you explain embryos which split after conception creating two or more separate people? Or how do you explain two embryos fusing into one (chimeras)?

Outstanding question Duckman. This explains exactly why the soul could not possibly be created (or incarnated) at the moment of conception. It has to be around the time of birth.

I think there is an "if" missing from this post Stryper.

 

[Stripes]

Re: Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split from Christianity thre

"If" indeed Back Panther (notwithstanding my own belief in the existence of the soul). ;D

 

[Djevv]

Re: Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split from Christianity thre

If a human with a soul is created at the moment of conception, how do you explain embryos which split after conception creating two or more separate people? Or how do you explain two embryos fusing into one (chimeras)?

Outstanding question Duckman. This explains exactly why the soul could not possibly be created (or incarnated) at the moment of conception. It has to be around the time of birth.

Who is an expert in what souls can or can't do? Maybe they simply follow what happens in the natural world? These are supernatural things we are talking about here.

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split from Christianity thread]

JFYI Jay covered this before I think, saying animals had no soul and they dont go to heaven (dont tell my wife there is no such thing as "puppy heaven")

Thanks T74. All creatures aren't created equal it seems and yet again God is portrayed in a less than favourable light in my eyes. I wonder why he went to so much trouble to gather all the animals on the Ark. I wonder what the Buddhist monk's principals are based on. They don't even condone swatting a fly or mossie.

I'd prefer to go to puppy heaven than human heaven I reckon. :hearton

Those monks believe in reincarnation, and that souls exist in these creatures.

 

[ronnit]

Re: Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split from Christianity thread]

if people think that the point of conception is when it becomes a "human life" then no one who is religious or doesnt believe in abortions at all should be on the pill. as far as i understand the pill stops the embryo from implanting on the wall of the uterus by making it unsuitable. therefore each month the woman may have conceived with the fused sperm and egg travelling down to the uterus and not attaching itself ..so the pill murders- i would say- MILLIONS of human lives...

what about all those potential lives flushed down the toilet and wiped on tissues!!!! trillions and trillions!!!!

 

[Dyer'ere]

Re: Women and Equality


I was discussing the abortion debate that is currently underway in Victoria with Ms Diarrhoea and she said something like "Just who made somebody's body sacrosanct? Why is that a woman's body is above the needs of a foetus?"

Well set out below is a compelling argument formed by a famous ethicist in 1971. It's a fine argument IMO. And it got the ball rolling way back.

The Violinist

Judith Jarvis Thomson

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you hare to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape.

http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~philosophy/courses/03-spring/berkich/professional_ethics-TR/notes/applying_analogy.html

There's some crit and logical analysis on the site too.

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Women and Equality

Can we please be very careful about the abortion discussion (if this is where this is going)?

Odds are there are at least a few posters who have had personal experience with the situation, and while its great to talk about it as an idealogical issue, for these people it is something much more personal.

 

[Rosy]

Re: Women and Equality

Well set out below is a compelling argument formed by a famous ethicist in 1971. It's a fine argument IMO. And it got the ball rolling way back.

I don't like the article but admittedly I haven't clicked on the link to see if there is some kind of context. It's too embellished with red herrings for my liking, and I don't find Judith's argument very compelling. In fact I find it confusing.

Why go on about fame as though that puts more value on the life than the most unrecognised pauper in a similar predicament? Why single out rape when there are many, many different reasons for abortion to be considered?

For example-What if transferring the blood would give the famous violinist a better chance of survival but cost the woman her life?

A very emotive topic and not really one to judge others' opinions on imo.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Re: Women and Equality

Can we please be very careful about the abortion discussion (if this is where this is going)?

Odds are there are at least a few posters who have had personal experience with the situation, and while its great to talk about it as an idealogical issue, for these people it is something much more personal.

All issues are very personal for somebody, T74. I'm a big fan of the idea that nothing is beyond discussion. This is the controversy board after all. That said maybe abortion needs to be split into a new thread so that those who find the issue distressing can avoid it. For mine it's a women and equality issue but I understand your POV.

I don't like the article but admittedly I haven't clicked on the link to see if there is some kind of context. It's too embellished with red herrings for my liking, and I don't find Judith's argument very compelling. In fact I find it confusing.

Why go on about fame as though that puts more value on the life than the most unrecognised pauper in a similar predicament? Why single out rape when there are many, many different reasons for abortion to be considered?

For example-What if transferring the blood would give the famous violinist a better chance of survival but cost the woman her life?

A very emotive topic and not really one to judge others' opinions on imo.

The idea of the exercise is to split the issues. To separate the issue of the right to life of a human or human fetus and the right of the woman to sovereignty over her body.

The famous violinist does seem like e red herring. And it is in a way. But JJT (naturally) has an agenda in using it. She's building in a notion of the greater good. The world is a better place because of the music of the violinist. It's a card she stores but does not play.

The rape example is often used ethical discussions on abortion to remove any blame that may be applied to the victim. Even though it complicates the expression of the argument it is designed to simplify the responses.

Using rape as the cause of the pregnancy removes the irrelevant issue of why the abortion is justified. Sometimes the carrying the fetus to term would kill the woman example is used instead.

Using examples that are emotionally controversial is not the issue to the philosopher in this case. She's looking for examples that are comparatively, ethically clear cut.

That the abortion issue is emotive I don't dispute. It's all over the papers ATM. And one of the sticking points is the cut off time for abortion. What JJT does is separate the issues of right to life of fetus and right to sovereignty over her body by the woman.

This is at the core of the late abortion issue.

There was a woman touring recently (sorry, the name is gone...) who was herself the subject of a failed abortion. She survived removal from the uterus and was removed from the ward by a nurse who sent her to (another) hospital. The story is a bizarre mix of tragedy and triumph. A minefield.

But JJT has a clear take on it. The woman was within her rights to remove the fetus and the nurse was within hers to tend the fetus. Many may not agree with one or the other aspect of this view. But it's about all I've got ATM. At the very least it's a great starting point for some clear thinking. From 1971.

And I take your view on this issue not being one to judge others on. But real soon we'll be passing laws on it.

 

[evo]

Re: Women and Equality

There's some pretty good existentialist arguments that support Ms Thompsons position too Jack.

It comes down to what it is meant by the term : 'to be' (see Heidegger or Satre for details)

When does the foetus aquire 'being'

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Women and Equality

I don't buy the argument that "a woman can do what she wants with her body" when it comes to abortion.

This is another case of people taking irresponsible actions to begin with and then taking out their poor judgement on others.

If a woman doesn't want to have a baby but still wants to have sex, then take precautions....ask the bloke to take precautions as well....FFS, we do live in the 21st century...there is no excuse for people saying their child was an 'accident' or simply having abortion after abortion because they decided to change their mind after the fact.

http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/risks-repeated-abortion.html

 

[Disco08]

Re: Women and Equality

Rape?

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Women and Equality

Rape?

Where did I mention rape?

I mentioned clearly women who have abortions because all of a sudden they change their mind.....and in instances, have multiple abortions.

There is a difference between women having an abortion because they were forced to have sex to begin with and women who choose to have sex and then have abortion/s because they feel that it is 'their body and they can do what they want with it'.
That to me is just irresponsibility with no thought for the responsibility they actually have when having sex and bringing a life into this world.

 

[Disco08]

Re: Women and Equality

Where did I mention rape?

You didn't. I just wanted to know what you thought of abortion where rape is concerned.

There is a difference between women having an abortion because they were forced to have sex to begin with and women who choose to have sex and then have abortion/s because they feel that it is 'their body and they can do what they want with it'.

This is true, but why exactly isn't that statement also true? Do you know exactly when a fetus becomes a functioning being?

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Women and Equality

no contraception is 100%, as those little buggers can be like Houdini.

And I have a good example. I know someone who's Mum has her tubes tied, yet still he is here with us today.

 

[evo]

Re: Women and Equality

Friend of mine sired 2 more kids after having a visectomy.

Obviously had strong swimmers

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Women and Equality

Thing I love is the surgeons post conception reaction. They play the straight bat likes its an unfortunate side-effect, the woman is sitting there going BUT I'M PREGNANT?!?!?!?