Reasonable People Cannot Always Agree To Disagree

Don’t you just love it when someone with whom you're arguing says, “Well, we will just have to agree to disagree”, as a spin of the phrase ‘Reasonable people can agree to disagree’, or as the shortened version, ‘Reasonable people can disagree’? Can reasonable people disagree over cannibalism in order to permit cannibalism, without doing violence to civilization?

As a pro-life advocate who gets into lots of discussions, I hear this ‘agree to disagree’ more and more. It tells me my points are getting to the irrational heart of defense for the abortion slaughter. When an advocate for abortion of alive little ones trapped in a womb tries to discuss the topic from a reasoned position, irrational underpinnings are eventually exposed and the ‘reasoning’ stops, in favor of either ending the discussion or deflecting the ‘reasoning’ into areas better defined as emotional landmines.

A whole new field of argument is arising in defense of exploiting individual human lives. There is a common foundation for these arguments, a theme running through the lines of reasoning from the ‘pro-choice’ camp, but the origins of that commonality are not to be found in choice to abort; it has a more subtle beginning than that.

Prior to ‘choice to abort’, dehumanization of individual life had already laid a foundation for exploiting and choosing, a basis for viewing individual human life as a phenomenon that grows in value, as opposed to being endowed with unalienable right to be. And it came into our collective psyche as a supposed benefit to humankind, a means to have science aid in conceiving babies with ‘artificial insemination’. Subtracting from our humanity, artificial insemination moved to more detached dehumanization, with in vitro fertilization, the scientific ‘miracle’ of conceiving ‘something’ outside of the woman’s body, then that thing being implanted into a woman’s body, to have a ‘growing (increasing) right to live’. [Devout Catholics would say contraception was the beginning of dehumanization, but that’s an historical discussion and not the focus of this essay. The Roe abortion decision came in 1973, but ‘artificial insemination’ had been a reality for years prior to Roe. The first in vitro fertilization baby in the world was born in July of 1978 in England, after many years of research. Today, many thousands of children are born annually as a result of the IVF technique.]

I cannot recall what I thought when first I learned that something could be conceived in a petri dish that would later be implanted in a woman’s body, to even later be born as a human baby. I have a vague recollection from my youth that some people warned against artificial insemination, warned that such manipulation of human conception would lead to a dehumanization process, a ‘slippery slope’. I don’t quite remember what was warned of down that slippery slope, but I don’t have to remember, because we are living in the age of arrival!

Now, at this descended-to plateau, engulfed in a degree of darkness not anticipated so long ago, we are again facing a slippery slope. How will we come to recognize it as a hazardous slope? … This time the hazard has a name. Will America reject cannibalism, despite the campaign to focus only upon the utilitarian value of cannibalism, diverting attention from the truth that we face cannibalism? If prepared properly, we will accept cannibalism, just as we accepted in vitro fertilization. [Note: I purposely repeat the word rather than allude to the reality. Cannibalism should have a revulsion value. Modern examples of cannibalism, such as the incident with plane crash victims who survived by eating the flesh of already dead crash victims, tend to blur our historic revulsion to cannibalism. Let’s focus upon the Jeffrey Dhamer version of cannibalism, the kill and consume version, as opposed to the ‘harvest from accidentally dead’ version of cannibalism.]

What could make cannibalism more palatable, more consumable? … Allow me to illustrate by sharing a recent discussion I had with a close cousin, a father of four.

My cousin asked me to explain a recent news story in which a research scientist was profiled for an heroic desire to cure his daughter’s spinal injury by developing protein matched tissues for transplantation. Nowhere in the story was the viewer (it was a TV presentation) given the underlying facts of how this tissue would be generated, only that stem cells closely matched to the daughter’s tissues would be harvested to treat her injury. As I explained the process of ‘therapeutic cloning’ (methodology the scientist intends to rely upon for the tissues he desires), my cousin displayed no revulsion to the process. No matter how graphic my description of the cloning and killing process, my cousin could see only the utilitarian value of the harvesting, never the cannibalistic reality of killing an individual human being conceived for the sole purpose of harvesting spare parts to treat the older individual human being. I was shocked that a well-educated man would not be repulsed by this cannibalism. Upon later reflection, I understood why. It’s that damn slippery slope!

Once the descending plateau is reached, an acceptance quotient has been established. In the case of therapeutic cloning, the acceptance quotient involves a speciously arranged ‘degree of humanness’ … a conceptus, or zygote, or embryo, or second (or even third) trimester fetus is not deemed a full human being. Nay Sayers will not be allowed to interfere with utilitarian value of the ‘conceive, support, kill, and harvest methodology’. Individual human life, prior to being born, is deemed ‘not yet a complete human being’ on our familiar darkened pro-choice plateau, thus to conceive individual human life, support that life, kill that life, and harvest from these ‘not yet complete human things’ is not defined as cannibalism. If these conceived individuals were admitted to be full human beings, would we still embrace the cannibalistic exploitation due to the utilitarian value of their individual designer body parts? The scientist of my cousin’s query most certainly would and my cousin would, because darkness this far down the slippery slope, this far down inside the funnel of dehumanization, is so great.

The pre-born are less human than the born? … Yes, when you strip away the rhetorical gamesmanship, the obfuscatory verbiage, that is what the arguments descend to, that is the dimness of our modern world. That is the plateau to which we’ve descended, from the seemingly innocent stage of artificial insemination then in vitro fertilization as merely medical assistance to natural conception. Touted as a boon to infertile couples, the in vitro fertilization process manipulated sex cells in a lab environment, conceived multiple embryos to be implanted in a woman’s uterus, stored excess embryos … and the process redefined the earliest age of an individual’s lifetime as but one stage ‘in a process that eventually becomes a human being’. So, where was the error in reasoning first made?

Sex cells are sub-units of organs; organs are sub-units of organisms; embryos are whole organisms. That was so quick, allow me to reiterate: cells are sub-units of organs, organs are sub-units of organisms; an individual human being is an organism; a kidney, for instance, is an organ of an organism.

In vitro fertilization manipulates, first, sex cells … sub-units of sex organs, organs of the parents. But if successful, in vitro fertilization conceives a whole, new organism … not just an organ, the whole organism! As the embryo grows, with the cell total climbing from one, to two, to three, to five, etc., the early cells are totipotent or pluripotent--less differentiated into the individual organs of the organism--thus the early cells are the organs of the individual begun with ‘petri dish’ conception, the assertions of Senator Orrin Hatch notwithstanding. [Senator Hatch claimed that conception doesn’t happen in a petri dish, possibly because Senator Hatch is pushing a bill that would allow therapeutic cloning, but not ‘reproductive cloning’. Senator Hatch has already decided that what is conceived in a petri dish and not allowed to live long enough to be born is not an individual human being, thus these ‘less than human’ beings will be fair game for killing and harvesting … fair game for his ‘to be protected’ form of cannibalism! Orrin Hatch’s reasoning has faltered at the difference between organs and whole organisms, thus he deems an embryo as no more than a non-differentiated organ that will ‘someday’ become an organism. And he’s patently and completely wrong!]

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. That fact is what was passed over so quickly when the debate over in vitro fertilization was squelched. That is the tiny error so grossly exploited to toss America down the slippery slope.

Now, after gradual descent (artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, amniocentesis, etc.) and later steep descent (abortion on demand, fetal tissue harvesting, partial birth abortion), we have arrived at a descended-to plateau beyond which is cannibalism, conceiving then killing individual human beings because their designer body parts at an embryonic age are of utilitarian value, of more utilitarian value than their unalienable right to life. Can ‘reasonable people’ agree to disagree on cannibalism, to allow the cannibalism to continue? May God have mercy upon America if such is reasonable at this stage in our nation’s life.

...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,

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.

... 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

'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.

...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

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?

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,

"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.

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?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.