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.

[Bust Nak]

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

I thought it quite common for atheists to embrace relativism. I am even in the moral relativist group.

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.

Would you call me believing vanilla is better than chocolate, while another believe ~vanilla is better than chocolate, a contradiction? I wouldn't, and I suspect not many would, at least not in the logical absurdity sense.

[Paprika]

I thought it quite common for atheists to embrace relativism. I in even the moral relativist group.

Well, it is my general practice to first assume that the people I engage with have viewpoints that are not completely ridiculous

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.
Would you call me believing vanilla is better than chocolate, while another believe ~vanilla is better than chocolate, a contradiction? I wouldn't, and I suspect not many would, at least not in the logical absurdity sense.

They are contradicting statements as so long as they have the same definition of 'better' ie when 'better' is not merely shortform for 'better for me, the speaker'.

In short, if one claim is X, and the other ~X, they are contradicting claims, by definition.

[Bust Nak]

Well, it is my general practice to first assume that the people I engage with have viewpoints that are not completely ridiculous

I'll let that slide for the smiley. You know the on going debate for moral subjectivism vs objectivism on the philosophical board, the one where you've already participated in? Feel free to make your point there if you want to seriously debate whether it is ridiculous or not.

They are contradicting statements as so long as they have the same definition of 'better' ie when 'better' is not merely shortform for 'better for me, the speaker'.

In short, if one claim is X, and the other ~X, they are contradicting claims, by definition.

Is there a typo? Surely if person A says "better for me, the speaker." and person B says "better for me, the speaker. They are using the same definition?

But sure. "Vanilla is better than chocolate according to A" and "vanilla is not better than chocolate according to B" are not statements of the form X and ~X. If that is not a problem, then why would "action X is moral according to A" and "action X is not moral according to B" be problematic?

[Paprika]

Well, it is my general practice to first assume that the people I engage with have viewpoints that are not completely ridiculous

I'll let that slide for the smiley. You know the on going debate for moral subjectivism vs objectivism on the philosophical board, the one where you've already participated in? Feel free to make your point there if you want to seriously debate whether it is ridiculous or not.

I will, thank you.

They are contradicting statements as so long as they have the same definition of 'better' ie when 'better' is not merely shortform for 'better for me, the speaker'.

In short, if one claim is X, and the other ~X, they are contradicting claims, by definition.

Is there a typo? Surely if person A says "better for me, the speaker." and person B says "better for me, the speaker. They are using the same definition?

The referent of 'me' is different.

But sure. "Vanilla is better than chocolate according to A" and "vanilla is not better than chocolate according to B" are not statements of the form X and ~X. If that is not a problem, then why would "action X is moral according to A" and "action X is not moral according to B" be problematic?

Already addressed:

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.

As long as it's limited to a statement of their own views, it's fine. But under the principle 'if someone believes X then X is the case' you get both 'X is the case' and '~X is the case', which is a contradiction.

[Bust Nak]

As long as it's limited to a statement of their own views, it's fine. But under the principle 'if someone believes X then X is the case' you get both 'X is the case' and '~X is the case', which is a contradiction.

Right, and my point was, the "if someone believes X then X is the case" you referred to, aren't contradictions, because it is limited to a statement of one own views, hence the terms 'relative' and 'subjective.'

[bluethread]

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.

Worthwhile goals are encouraged, not demanded. If one can not establish a way to meet a worthwhile goal caused by a particular course of action, that does not invalidate the philosophical base of an alternative action.

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.

As I stated above, and in previous posts, there is no philosophical inconsistency when one can not come up with a solution to problems caused by not following that philosophy. Those who oppose the death penalty are not required to come up with a way of bringing a person who is left brain dead after a botched execution back to life.

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.

As you note, this is a side point and in my opinion a minor repairs argument, but that is an argument for another thread. The point is that what you are asking for from pro lifers goes way beyond anything that is required of the anti fossil fuels crowd.

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.

However, that was not even considered until after the war was over. Sure, refugees were accommodated to some degree, but pro lifers are making great efforts to accommodate refugee embryos by encouraging preemptive adoption and egg donation.

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.

So, rather than discourage the concentration camps, we should simply have provided counseling to the NAZI's and, if we determined that the NAZI's were not mentally stable enough to provide for those people, permitted them to continue gassing them?

[Paprika]

As long as it's limited to a statement of their own views, it's fine. But under the principle 'if someone believes X then X is the case' you get both 'X is the case' and '~X is the case', which is a contradiction.

Right, and my point was, the "if someone believes X then X is the case" you referred to, aren't contradictions, because it is limited to a statement of one own views, hence the terms 'relative' and 'subjective.'

Quite. But under the principle that you espoused, ie."if someone believes X then X is the case", then it follows from 'A believes X' and 'B believes not X' that 'X is the case' and '~X is the case' respectively, ie. a contradiction.

[Bust Nak]

Worthwhile goals are encouraged, not demanded. If one can not establish a way to meet a worthwhile goal caused by a particular course of action, that does not invalidate the philosophical base of an alternative action.

What alternative action are you talking about exactly? Why ought we not demand solution to have our energy requirement maintained?

As I stated above, and in previous posts, there is no philosophical inconsistency when one can not come up with a solution to problems caused by not following that philosophy. Those who oppose the death penalty are not required to come up with a way of bringing a person who is left brain dead after a botched execution back to life.

But they are required to have a position that is consistent. Whether a person need to come up with a solution to heal a brain dead person from a botched execution, depends if not coming up with a solution contradict with that persons view on death penalty. If you think you can spot one, you are justified in demanding an answer.

The point is that what you are asking for from pro lifers goes way beyond anything that is required of the anti fossil fuels crowd.

I don't think I am doing that at all. I see an apparent inconsistency, and I am going to question it. I don't see the same inconsistency with anti fossil fuels crowd. Point it out and I'll answer it.

However, that was not even considered until after the war was over. Sure, refugees were accommodated to some degree, but pro lifers are making great efforts to accommodate refugee embryos by encouraging preemptive adoption and egg donation.

But not when it comes to refugee embryos from IVF, hence the charge of inconsistency.

So, rather than discourage the concentration camps, we should simply have provided counseling to the NAZI's and, if we determined that the NAZI's were not mentally stable enough to provide for those people, permitted them to continue gassing them?

I have no problem putting said Nazi's through the mental torture of not being permitted to gas people.

[Bust Nak]

Quite. But under the principle that you espoused, ie."if someone believes X then X is the case", then it follows from 'A believes X' and 'B believes not X' that 'X is the case' and '~X is the case' respectively, ie. a contradiction.

And I am saying it doesn't follow because "X is the case" is shortform for "X is better for me, the speaker."

[Paprika]

Quite. But under the principle that you espoused, ie."if someone believes X then X is the case", then it follows from 'A believes X' and 'B believes not X' that 'X is the case' and '~X is the case' respectively, ie. a contradiction.

And I am saying it doesn't follow because "X is the case" is shortform for "X is better for me, the speaker."

So what is the following statement supposed to mean in this magical type of relativist reading, pray tell?

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

How is this not "if someone (I) believes X then X is the case"?