Reasonable People Cannot Always Agree To Disagree

Self ^ | 5/12/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[Diamond]

...an acceptable definition of what a person is remains ellisive: Obviously a blastula of cells is not a person.

If an acceptable definition of what a person is remains ellusive, how do you know for certain, or 'obviously', that a blastula of cells is not a person? What is your justification for your distinction between 'human being' and 'person'? What's the difference?

Cordially,

[sauropod]

Oh come on. I just went through this exact same argument with someone else on another thread.

The end result of our discussion was that nothing I put in front of him in the way of Scripture would change his mind.

It was already made up. As I suspect yours is.

[MHGinTN]

You wrote: '... this article seems off base on IVF and "cannibalism".' Many infertile couples have used IVF to have a baby, which in my book is a pro-life statement. I don't think even our present culture would ever sanction cannibalism." Thank you for your honest assessment.

IVF is not the cannibalism upon which the essay tried to focus, though the IVF process is not pro-life since it makes a mere commodity of the embryos, allowing for extra embryos to be conceived and manipulated as if commoditries not individual human lives; the IVF process is very dehumanizing for the embryo age of individual lifetimes.

The slow dehumanization of conceived individual human life had, as an important step in our society's acceptance, IVF as a way to assist pregnancy achievement. The process, however, conceives individual human lives in a petri dish(embryonic individual human beings), manipulates these individual humans at their earliest age in their individual lifetime (embryo age), implanting several at a time to try for at least one pregnancy. Additionally, 'extra' embryonic individual lives are stored in freezers and some are sent out to research facilities to be 'sacrificed' for science.

The cannibalism arises when the embryos are conceived then used for research or direct treatment of other individual human beings (as in the extras, or in the case of a NJ company, conceiving new embryos specifically meant for dissection and harvesting). IVF is already sustaining a degree of cannibalization, by providing embryonic individual lives for dissection and 'harvesting' of stem cells for research.

The scientist mentioned in the essay intends (by his own admission) to conceive a copy of his daughter, a clone of his daughter, but not allow that new individual life to reach birth age; he intends to clone then harvest the body parts of the clone, cannibalizing the alive cloned individual being to get the cells he deems necessary to treat his daughter's malady, killing and discarding the clone in the process. That is cannibalism, as surely as if the scientists handed the stem cells to his daughter to have her eat them for a cure, or eat the entire embryo for a cure.

[Registered]

[colorado tanker]

I agree with you that IVF should not be used to produce embryos for stem cell research.

I've been through the infertility process myself, although we chose adoption over IVF. I do know that most couples using IVF experience a great deal of pain and anguish, not to mention the expense. Doesn't seem fair to me to heap more guilt on them.

[Dave S]

The end result of our discussion was that nothing I put in front of him in the way of Scripture would change his mind.

Yes it's a matter of faith, not fact. You cant proof it. Thats why you have faith. So dont bet your life on every word of the Bible. I got news for you, not all of is truthful at least in the way you think.

[FirstTomato]

1 in 4? That seems like an incredibly high number. Where did you get that statistic?

[ffusco]

What is your standard, a political definition of personhood, a biological one or an empirical one?

[ffusco]

Well said!

[Hank Kerchief]

... your pro-abortion stance.

It is wardaddy's irrational approach that does more to promote abortion that even the pro-abotionists are able to accomplish. You cannot be against abortion and for more government power to control individuals. Government power will not be used the way you want it to be.

As I said to VeritatisSplendor:

Think it through. I'm opposed to abortion, but no abortionist is a threat to me, or to anyone else who is opposed to abortion. The government is a threat to everyone.

Hank

[MHGinTN]

So that's what MSAntifeminazi was referring to! It is one of your most brilliant compositions, Registered! You've captured the essence of the mindset, fer shur.

[MHGinTN]

'Personhood' is not a biological framework, it is a legal framework. Biologically, Embryologists define the beginning of individual human lifetime as conception and evidence the expressing of the individual's own life as mitosis. A fixed legal definition of personhood is another matter entirely and may have gradations depending on which state is under scrutiny. To repudiate cannibalism of therapeutic cloning, our society has first to understand the biological reality and work from there ... hence the notion that reasonable people cannot always agree to disagree because to agree to disagree allows the wrongness of cannibalism to continue under the guise of 'no agreement is possible'. Of course the scientists wanting to exploit individual human beings for body parts in their embryo age will not agree that what they're doing is cannibalism ... as long as the scoiety shows evidence of being repulsed by cannibalism. As is mentioned in the essay "If prepared properly, we will accept cannibalism, just as we accepted in vitro fertilization." If the dehumanization is successfully served up to us, we will abandon the truth that an embryo is the earliest age of an individual human being, despite clear evidence that an alive embryo is an individual human being.

[freeangel]

A transfusion doesn't kill the donor, does it? And the donor also has a chance to give his consent.

[Hank Kerchief]

...people begin when they are born, I said.

You said, Any scientist that would claim life begins at birth...

Here we go again. As I said to VeritatisSplendor post #104:

Why is it necessary to resort to a disingenuous use of words? Why not say exactly what you mean? A tumor is alive. A worm is alive.

Who questions whether a fetus is alive? Why to you people keep asking the same question?

Words have meaning, like it or not. If you go to the store and ask for a pound of chicken and when you get home you discover you've been given a pound fertilized chicken eggs, you won't be satisfied with the argument that a fertilized and developing chicken "fetus" is a chicken.

You know what it means to say, "don't count your chickens 'til they hatch." That's why the census does not count people 'til they're born; because, their not people yet.

I'm sorry to have to repeat the same simple lessons, but you people keep saying the same dumb things. Do you think these insipid inanities you spout are really going to help the cause of those who oppose abortion.

Hank

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

It is now the case that some excess embryos are sent to research facilities, with the signed release form from the 'owners' of the embryos, of course.

I have been told that in the past, the excess embryos were not disclosed to the parents and were ultimately "disposed of". I have since been told that you can now request that only a certain number of embryos be developed at a high price per embryo to reduce the number of "disposed" embryos. Is any of this true?

[Diamond]

I simply asked how you know for certain, or 'obviously', that a blastula of cells is not a person, especially in light of your claim that an acceptable definition of what a person is remains illusive. If you don't know the definition of 'person', how do you know for certain what is not a person? The reason I asked is that your simultaneous claim of lack of knowledge and knowledge seems self-refuting.

By way of reply you ask what is my standard; a political definition of personhood, a biological one or an empirical one. I can tell you this much; the definition of personhood is ontological in nature, and proper usage of the term should be informed by the biological, empirical fact the beginning of every person is at the beginning; i.e., at fertilization.

Now, please justify your implied distinction between human being, and person. What's the difference?

Cordially,

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"Whether in a dish or a human host, the embryo is an individual human being alive at the earliest age along the continuum we call a human lifetime.

A human lifetime is measured from birth to death. An embryo that is never born has no human lifetime."

By you. By me, I measure human life from conception to death.

Also, science recognizes the start of an organism's life at conception. If this were not true, what would you call the life time from conception to birth? The heart is beating, the brain is working, the fetus is growing--why is this not life? It's DNA is always distinct from the mother. It's circulation system is distinct--why is this not life?

I've heard of people defining the fetus as not human, but I think this is the first time I've seen someone define it as not alive. Tell that to a woman who feels the baby kick inside of her.

"It is amazing that those who makes such claims are depending on the testimony of science, the very same science that says, people begin when they are born."

Name any scientific source that says a fetus is not alive. It is merely our law that measures life from birth. Science has always stated life starts from conception.

"Those who oppose abortion in this country do not have to have one. This is not true in countries where the power to determine whether or not abortion is allowed (or required) is in the hands of the government. Anyone who opposes abortion should do everything in their power to ensure the choice in this matter is never determined by government."

So, if the government determines not to enforce the law of murder, you're ok with that? The issue is whether a fetus or a zygote is human. Scientifically, the definition of a living human is 1. alive 2. human DNA. Both the zygote and fetus qualify.

[asformeandformyhouse]

I'm sorry to have to repeat the same simple lessons, but you people keep saying the same dumb things. Do you think these insipid inanities you spout are really going to help the cause of those who oppose abortion.

The only thing you should be sorry for is being a flaming butthole. Don't get your panties in a wad, little lady. Is it that time of the month or are you always a little on the grumpy side. Do you think by acting like a festering hemorrhoid that you're going to help your cause?

[asformeandformyhouse]

I'm sorry to have to repeat the same simple lessons, but you people keep saying the same dumb things. Do you think these insipid inanities you spout are really going to help the cause of those who oppose abortion.

The only thing you should be sorry for is being a flaming butthole. Don't get your panties in a wad, little lady. Is it that time of the month or are you always a little on the grumpy side. Do you think by acting like a festering hemorrhoid that you're going to help your cause?

[Cathryn Crawford]

The Washington Dispatch