Unwanted embryos

[Zzyzx]

.

I think there is a relationship suggested here: that lack of moral outrage means lack of moral issue. Surely lack of moral outrage implies lack of morals more clearly?

Here's an idea: all unwanted embryos should become property of the state

Let's explore that suggestion.

Unwanted embryos cannot, at present state of technology, develop into an independently living human being. They require a uterus for development.

Shall we FORCE women to carry and give birth to those unwanted embryos if they do not do so willingly?

None of us would likely consider it rational to force a woman to undergo pregnancy with the frozen embryos. We would consider it a draconian invasion of the woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body. Right? Anyone disagree so far?

Now, apply that to unwanted pregnancy.

Many WOULD force a woman to undergo pregnancy unwillingly with an embryo (egg fertilized by a sperm (in utero) -- identical to in vitro / frozen embryo) if it resulted from intercourse. Remember, there is no difference in the embryos.

THAT, I maintain is draconian infringement upon the woman's right to do make decisions regarding her own body – because someone else feels empowered to decide when she should and should not have intercourse and under what conditions.

THAT, I maintain is the "moral objection" – objection to couples having intercourse unless they are willing to produce and raise offspring. For many or most couples in the modern world that means abstaining from intercourse other than a few times in a lifetime.

Everyone agree with that plan? Or do you think it is nuts (or hopelessly idealistic, fantasy, irrational, etc)?

Who is empowered to make such "rules" for others or to force their opinions onto others? What religious dogma is empowered? By whom?

Outside of some moralizers and "righteous" propagandists, Christians seem to agree that a woman should not be forced to undergo unwanted pregnancy -- by virtue of the fact that Christian women account for most abortions in the US -- well over a half million per year.

Actual numbers: 65% of 1.21 million abortions are Christian women (2008) = 786,500. Total abortions since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 = 50 million x 65% = 32,500,000 Christian abortions.

[bluethread]

The fallacy is in the fact that the capacity of the responsible party to expand the problem is greater than the ability of the protesting party to resolve. This is an inherent problem for all such situations. This applies in the conflict between the global climate change advocates and those who say carbon is not a pollutant. So, the argument in that case would be without reducing the use of carbon fuels, how do the climate change people propose we save the world? No one says climate change people are inconstant when they don't propose such solutions. That is because such a suggest is born of a fallacy.

No idea what you mean here, climate change people ARE the ones proposing solutions - carbon trading and carbon trapping technologies springs to mind straight away.

Besides, the naysayers aren't actually demanding to maintain carbon fuel usage as such, they just want to maintain energy usage. We ARE coming up with solution so that none of us have to give up on our every day convenience. When scientists come up with electric cars that is better than petrol cars, people will switch.

Prolife people are proposing solutions also, ie adoption(carbon trading) and ICU technologies(carbon trapping). Your point is well taken, people aren't demanding IVF as such, but do not want to give up on having children from their own DNA. When scientists come up with procedures that insure a single fertilized egg will take, people may very well switch. I say very well because, unlike those with pie in the sky dreams for wind and solar power sufficient to maintain our every day convenience, I believe that as long as long as maintaining our every day convenience is the goal, demand will always outstrip supply.

Let me state the comparison simply. Those who oppose IVF see the procedure as producing a situation where lives will be lost. This who oppose the burning of fossil fuels see the procedure as producing a situation where lives will be lost. Those who oppose IVF are required to come up with a solution that permits the continued unlimited use of IVF. Those who oppose the burning of fossil fuels are not required to come up with a solution that permits the continued unlimited use of fossil fuels. Why is that?

Because we are proactive are already coming up with solutions long before being required?

No, carbon credits are just a shell game designed to make Al Gore rich and electricity is not a power source, but a means of transmission. The vast majority of electrical power comes from the burning of fossil fuels. The reaction and solutions to the actual biosphere pollution that was addressed in the early 1970's was apparent in Charles Dickens' time(1812-1870) and to some extent still exists. That and all other environmental technologies have been developed and enacted only after hard sell apocalyptic prophecies. There were specific case law incidences, but the point is that environmental technologies were hardly presented or enacted long before they were required by environmentalists. Therefore, requiring pro-lifers to come up with perfect solutions to the problems created by IVF and abortion on demand is hardly reasonable.

That is only because you trivialize abortion on demand. Let's not trivialize the holocaust, but make an equal analogy. Was it the responsibility of these United States to facilitate the removal of all "inferiors" from Nazi occupied territory so the Nazi's would not be "forced" to kill them?

No. I also don't get your point, what dilemma is supposed to be highlighted here?

Then why is it the responsibility of all pro-lifers to facilitate the removal of all "inferiors" from abortion clinics and IVF facilities, so they are not "forced" to kill them?

To take the tack of another thread, would it have been torture for the rest of the world to require the Nazi territories to have to endure the pain and suffering of providing for "inferiors"?

Maybe, depends on the particular Nazi.

So, you are saying that requiring pregnant women to endure the pain and suffering of providing for the "inferiors" in their bodies, depends on the woman. If so, what are the determining characteristics that differentiate those that are required from those who are not required?

Before you pull the fallacy card, note that this was precisely the argument Margaret Sanger used to establish Planned Parenthood, ie a means to rid the world of the "unfit".

See? I don't have a problem giving straight answers.

Though short, those are conditional answers. I just prefer to be clear about the conditions of my conditional answers and not just say, "Maybe, depends . . . " I appreciate your straight answers, I just hope they will be more complete in the future.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 90 by Paprika]

Take the one I mentioned already, why wouldn't anyone deserve the right to marriage? This set of people rights is already populated by at least one entry.

[Bust Nak]

Prolife people are proposing solutions also, ie adoption(carbon trading) and ICU technologies(carbon trapping). Your point is well taken, people aren't demanding IVF as such, but do not want to give up on having children from their own DNA. When scientists come up with procedures that insure a single fertilized egg will take, people may very well switch. I say very well because, unlike those with pie in the sky dreams for wind and solar power sufficient to maintain our every day convenience, I believe that as long as long as maintaining our every day convenience is the goal, demand will always outstrip supply.

Maybe, but fixing the short and medium term problem is still an worthwhile goal.

No, carbon credits are just a shell game designed to make Al Gore rich and electricity is not a power source, but a means of transmission. The vast majority of electrical power comes from the burning of fossil fuels. The reaction and solutions to the actual biosphere pollution that was addressed in the early 1970's was apparent in Charles Dickens' time(1812-1870) and to some extent still exists. That and all other environmental technologies have been developed and enacted only after hard sell apocalyptic prophecies. There were specific case law incidences, but the point is that environmental technologies were hardly presented or enacted long before they were required by environmentalists. Therefore, requiring pro-lifers to come up with perfect solutions to the problems created by IVF and abortion on demand is hardly reasonable.

Again, it's not really about finding solutions to problems, but demonstrating consistencies in viewpoints. We are not proposing we implement anything you come up with.

Side points: Sure, I wish people like Al Gore does not profiteer from carbon trading, but paying other countries to plant trees instead of logging do work. More fossil fuel burning power stations + electric cars, is far cleaner than fewer fossil fuel burning power stations + fossil fuel burning cars. Carbon capturing and actual energy conversation are both more efficient at power station turbines than in combustion engines, same goes for transporting electricity instead of petrol to consumers.

Then why is it the responsibility of all pro-lifers to facilitate the removal of all "inferiors" from abortion clinics and IVF facilities, so they are not "forced" to kill them?

Oh I get you now. I read "removal of inferiors" and thought you meant killing them. My fault. So with this in mind, yes, the US do have a duty to take in the Jews, homosexuals and gypsies from Germany, on top of fighting the Nazis.

So, you are saying that requiring pregnant women to endure the pain and suffering of providing for the "inferiors" in their bodies, depends on the woman. If so, what are the determining characteristics that differentiate those that are required from those who are not required?

Nothing specific, what I had in mind is the mental assessment or counselling that happens before an abortion takes place.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 90 by Paprika]

Take the one I mentioned already, why wouldn't anyone deserve the right to marriage? This set of people rights is already populated by at least one entry.

You have to demonstrate that it exists, not just ask 'why wouldn't anyone deserve the right to marriage?', think there is no good answer and then conclude it does.

[Bust Nak]

You have to demonstrate that it exists, not just ask 'why wouldn't anyone deserve the right to marriage?', think there is no good answer and then conclude it does.

It's a matter of value judgement. I say sentient aliens deserve the right to marriage, then they do.

[Paprika]

You have to demonstrate that it exists, not just ask 'why wouldn't anyone deserve the right to marriage?', think there is no good answer and then conclude it does.

It's a matter of value judgement. I say sentient aliens deserve the right to marriage, then they do.

So you're saying that the right to marriage is altogether subjective? Just because you say it exists for some people, it does, and because others say it doesn't, it doesn't?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

[Bust Nak]

So you're saying that the right to marriage is altogether subjective?

All value judgement are subjective. "The right X exists for A" is just way of saying A ought to be allowed to do X.

Just because you say it exists for some people, it does

Yes.

and because others say it doesn't, it doesn't?

No.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Yes.

[Paprika]

So you're saying that the right to marriage is altogether subjective?

All value judgement are subjective. "The right X exists for A" is just way of saying A ought to be allowed to do X.

Just because you say it exists for some people, it does

Yes.

Your subjective opinion that it should exist is noted. However, that you claim that something is the case ("I say sentient aliens deserve the right to marriage") does not imply that they do.

When you have any demonstration that it actually exists, do let me know.

and because others say it doesn't, it doesn't?

No.

Cute. Why?

[Bust Nak]

Your subjective opinion that it should exist is noted. However, that you claim that something is the case ("I say sentient aliens deserve the right to marriage") does not imply that they do.

That challenge is question begging. My subjective opinion that aliens deserve the right to marriage would not imply that they do, if and only if rights are not matters of value judgement, on whether one thinks alien ought to be allowed to get married.

When you have any demonstration that it actually exists, do let me know.

But you already acknowledge my subjective opinion that it should exist. What more do you need, to prove that I actually do feel that everyone ought to be allowed to get married?

Cute. Why?

Because it is a matter of value judgement and hence subjective. Are you sure you've thought this through?

[Paprika]

Your subjective opinion that it should exist is noted. However, that you claim that something is the case ("I say sentient aliens deserve the right to marriage") does not imply that they do.

That challenge is question begging. My subjective opinion that aliens deserve the right to marriage would not imply that they do, if and only if rights are not matters of value judgement, on whether one thinks alien ought to be allowed to get married.

Ah okay, I thought I was dealing with someone who hadn't yielded to complete relativism, but there it is.

Because it is a matter of value judgement and hence subjective. Are you sure you've thought this through?

As long as it's limited to a statement of your own views, it's fine. But once you go 'if someone believes X then X is the case' you're bound to run into contradiction because practically speaking there'll always be someone who believes ~X, therefore the principle of subjectivity/relativism leads to many contradictions.

All cleared up?