Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reasonable People Cannot Always Agree To Disagree
Self ^ | 5/12/2003 | Marvin Galloway

Posted on 05/12/2003 8:23:00 PM PDT by MHGinTN

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.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortion; cloning; invitro; life
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 361-365 next last
To: Kevin Curry; Torie
I think Torie is correct. People who support abortion on demand and marketing in human parts (what is called cannabilism on this thread) are people who have already decided (as a matter of faith in liberal ideology) that human life does not begin until the child is separated from the mother and the first breath is drawn.

They must defend this tenet of their liberal faith at all costs, otherwise, they have to admit that what they support is killing for the sake of expedience.

Thus, people who have this liberal faith will never be persuaded by arguments, as they will always believe anything other than a child that is "born" and "breathing" are human.

On the other hand, the vast majority of americans do not have a belief on this already, and can be persuaded through logical argument, such as the article above.
181 posted on 05/13/2003 1:37:19 PM PDT by brownie (Reductio Ad Absurdum, or something like that . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
you wrote (hehehe): And your definition that a fertilized egg is a baby is ridiculous. My definition at least has some practical value at describing a phase of life, and an understanding of gestation and the development of an individual. A fertilized egg is a zygote, no longer an egg. [This has been covered numerous times already, so I won't bore the reaers with a personal update for you, bless your heart.] A zygote is not a baby. You are not a baby. A fetus at eight weeks from conception (its beginning to its individual human lifetime) is not a baby. The point of the lesson is, from one decade to another the 'you' is different in substantial ways, but the lifetime is still your lifetime, your unique, individual lifetime begun at conception and having ages called zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. That absolute fact is what makes it possible for sceince to test you at embryo age for Downs or scicle cell anemia and be assured that you DO or DON'T have the disease, even though you've only reached embryo or fetal age along your lifetime continuum.
182 posted on 05/13/2003 1:43:27 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
We're done here.
183 posted on 05/13/2003 1:47:45 PM PDT by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus, Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: brownie
Thank you! That was the author's intention, to address the issues to the vast majority of fellow Americans who are moderate and likely uninformed but willing to look into it before having legislation passed by their elected representatives that would offend their value system. Many do not consider utilitarian cannibalism a bad thing and will embrace it willingly if said cannibalism can make Mister Reeve walk again or cure their parent's Parkinsons. Because of that dichotomy, it is important that these issues be discussed.
184 posted on 05/13/2003 1:48:00 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
Looks like its just you and me HK.

Well, that puts me in good company anyway.

Hank

185 posted on 05/13/2003 2:57:54 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
oh, thanks.
186 posted on 05/13/2003 3:02:59 PM PDT by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
No, they are different, a month old fetus is not a baby. If you can nurse it , it's a baby.

True. It must be a frog.

187 posted on 05/13/2003 3:20:42 PM PDT by carenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
And there lies a difference, it doesn't have to threaten me to me to oppose it, if it threatens the life another innocent human being that is quite sufficient a cause for me to oppose it, and expect a government sworn to defend the life and liberty of its people to so something about it.





188 posted on 05/13/2003 3:28:27 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
...expect a government sworn to defend the life and liberty of its people...

If that is what you expect, you are going to be dissappointed. The more power you give the government, the more it is going to become a threat to the life and liberty of its people, all of its people.

The government of the United States is one of the most powerful in the world. How much has it reduced the number of abortions, drug use, crime, and child abuse in the last fifty years, in the last 100.

If you are opposed to something, anything, the last place to look for the solution is the government. Or maybe history is not something you think matters.

Hank

189 posted on 05/13/2003 3:50:57 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
Yes. Late term abortion is a filthy disgusting practice.

Yes it is.
But it is ok to cut a 24 week old "piece of tissue" and drag the parts out.

190 posted on 05/13/2003 4:02:35 PM PDT by carenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Sadly,

You are so enslaved by equivocation that you have no sense of right or wrong.

Dress it up however you like in whatever cliche or platitude you wish and in the end your freedom entails your right to kill the most innocent we have in the pursuit of liberty.

I can only assume the irony escapes you.
191 posted on 05/13/2003 4:20:21 PM PDT by wardaddy (Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain, and all the children are insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife
When thinking of birth certificates, it makes me wonder why the state would issue a death certificate, for a stillborn baby that was naturally miscarried. Don't many say that a baby isn't a baby until it is born and has taken its first breath?

I suffered through two spontanious abortions. They had names but no funeral.

192 posted on 05/13/2003 4:32:28 PM PDT by carenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: FirstTomato
http://www.savalifeeast.org/abortion.htm

http://www.aclupa.org/duvall/women.html

http://www.kofcwoodstock.com/peacenoabortion.htm

http://www.kofc.org/columbia/january2003/peace2.htm

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm

www.kff.org/content/2001/3170/AbortionintheUS.pdf

www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/teens.html

www.cvillepregnancy.org/teenfacts.html

www.abortionfacts.com/learn/ healing_in_todays_society.asp -

www.newsandsentinel.com/columns/story/ 037202003_col01_Abortion.asp -

http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/articles/articles/making-sense-of-statistics.htm


OK...I could go on and on all night linking. Some are worse...estimates of nearly half of all American women will have an abortion by age 45 (pursuing Kechief's vile idea of freedom)

Another interesting estimate is one abortion per woman worldwide.....many view that as good news. That is exponentially greater than all the fatalities from war...

So much for kinder and gentler...
193 posted on 05/13/2003 4:34:42 PM PDT by wardaddy (Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain, and all the children are insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; ffusco; MHGinTN; Coleus; Remedy; nickcarraway; Mr. Silverback; ...
ffusco, Hank Kerchief, MHGinTN, et al.,

There is such a thing as objective truth—it is independent and eternal. It remains so regardless of what the whole world may think otherwise.

Three years before Roe v Wade, another case was decided at the federal level that was consistent with the objective truth (as well as biological-genetic-scientific truth) that life begins at conception. See complete excerpt and link to full article below my comments.

The case went to the extent to say that legally, Human Personhood Begins at Conception : "Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."

Simply put, Freeper MHGinTN and the entire Pro-Life movement cannot “agree to disagree” because we know the truth and WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE, we will not turn ourselves into liars—period.

When it comes to life and death—THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE.

A VERY SPECIAL THANKS TO FREEPER REMEDY FOR POSTING THIS!

Constitutional Persons:An Exchange on Abortion

The common law basis of our system embodied in the principle of stare decisis and the just requirements of consistency in applying the law demand a respect for precedent. To this objection I offer two replies. First, there was a federal court precedent for the unborn person reading of Fourteenth Amendment before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court. In Stenberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated that "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology." "Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it." Yet in commenting on the unborn person argument in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." He did so despite the fact that he had cited the case just five paragraphs earlier! The failure of both appellees and the Court to treat this case is both unfortunate and inexplicable. Second, while our system is based upon a reasonable and healthy respect for precedent, this has never prevented the Court from revisiting and modifying precedent when the erroneous foundation and unjust results of that precedent become manifest. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death;
do not stand back and let them die.

Proverbs 24:11

194 posted on 05/13/2003 4:46:57 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
We're done here.

Agreeing to disagree... or taking your ball and going home?

It was done before it began.

195 posted on 05/13/2003 4:47:44 PM PDT by WarSlut (Boycott Disney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Excellent essay. Who would have ever thought we would have to face this in this country?
196 posted on 05/13/2003 4:50:38 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
I guess you're an anarchist since you don't expect the government to do anything. Do you believe their should be property laws, why should you expect the government to protect your property? Do you believe there should be laws against battery, or even murder? Why should you expect the government to protect your life?

197 posted on 05/13/2003 4:50:39 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
A worm is alive and taking in oxygen and nutrition and synthesizing molecules and growing and moving and reacting to stimuli and excreting waste.

So do tadpoles. But are they frogs?

198 posted on 05/13/2003 4:51:05 PM PDT by carenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
You are so enslaved by equivocation...

I'm touched by your concern.

Hank

199 posted on 05/13/2003 5:07:33 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
"Can reasonable people disagree over cannibalism in order to permit cannibalism, without doing violence to civilization?" If one opposes cannibalism, it would not be reasonable to leave the debate at 'agreeing to disagree'. Agreeing to disagree accomplishes the goal of those who don't want opposition to their chosen behavior. In this case, by withholding opposition to cannibalism, or agreeing to disagree without action to prevent it, the techniques of this form of cannibalism will become part of the active medical armamentarium.

There are people in the scientific community actually trying to achieve this 'acquisition by our default' by obfuscating and dissembling, because they believe at present our society will not easily embrace their form of cannibalism. If we in the pro-life movement don't act now to emphasize this relation to cannibalism, the society will be drawn into accepting cannibalism/therapeutic cloning under the guise of utilitarian value.

200 posted on 05/13/2003 5:12:51 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 361-365 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson