Reasonable People Cannot Always Agree To Disagree

Self ^ | 5/12/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[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.

[Hank Kerchief]

If the first part were true, you wouldn't be here posting a number of times over a period of two days.

You are quite right. I've posted too much.

Hank

[WarSlut]

You can't see the principle, so I'll not bother to argue further.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

[WarSlut]

You are quite right. I've posted too much.

If that's the extent of your response, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Hank Kerchief]

There is no hope for me. I have lived a rich and varied life the world over and this is what works for me.

Since the purpose of your life is your enjoyment of it, you seem to have achieved, by default possibly, the very thing your mom tried to teach you.

I hope you continue to enjoy your life in your way. You are not without hope at all.

Hank

[wardaddy]

I'm content. I have learned not to trust happiness.

Nite!

[asformeandformyhouse]

I couln't find it in my Bible.

Oh you have a Bible? Great! Might I suggest a careful study of it. Since you interjected the Bible into our discussion, you might like to know that God has a different opionion than you do as to when PEOPLE begin.

Jeremiah 1:5  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee

In God's eyes there is a difference between a person and the ever-present tumor you're so fond of talking about. A careful study could show you the difference.

Pssst. Here's a hint: One of them has a soul.

[Diamond]

1) Its obvious that a zygote is not a person, anymore than a corpse is not a person

This analogy is a category fallacy. A corpse is always a dead body. A zygote, a one-celled body, is alive unless he dies. Thus he can be either alive or dead.

You still assert that your proposition that a zygote is not a person is obvious, while at the same time asserting that no one knows the definition of life. (How do you know that no one knows? Have you searched throughout the universe to determinie this 'fact'? Perhaps there is one person who does know that you haven't met yet. In any case, to assert with any certainty that 'know one knows' you would have to be omniscient.) A category fallacy and a self-refuting proposition do not constitute an adequate justification.

Cordially,

[Hank Kerchief]

God has a different opionion than you do as to when PEOPLE begin.

You mean this God?

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Psalm 137:8-9 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Yes. That opinion is different than mine.

Is it your opnion that ripping up women with their unborn is a good thing?

Hank

[asformeandformyhouse]

Read closer.

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Rebellion against God has consequences. Pray you never find out.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[MHGinTN]

bttt

[VOA]

didn't Lincoln say something like "some issues can only be settled in blood"?

[nosofar]

"The cannabilism analogy degrades this piece right from the get go. It won't persuade anyone that is not already persuaded. In any event, the whole debate turns on perceptions of just when a fetus, or something in a petri dish, should obtain legal protections. And unfortunately, that really isn't very susceptible to argument. It is more about a priori assumptions."


Pro-choicers must fall back on metaphysical arguments (the fetus is not a 'person') to support their case. When the facts are examined objectively, any reasonable person must admit that abortion kills a human life.

[nosofar]

"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."



Science can take no stand on when a human becomes a 'person'. This is a philosophical and legal question. Scientists do generally agree that human life begins at conception.

[WomanofStandard]

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail

As pro-life as I am I still can't find the time to read the many articles you post so please, remove me from your ping list. Hopefully I will happen by the pro-life articles I am meant to see in my daily visits to FR.

[MHGinTN]

Scientists also base a good deal of testing for genetic diseases on the first axiom of embryology that an individual comes into existence at conception, else their tests would not be valid as diagnostic tools for individual human beings. As one debate brought out recently, "If you want to test a gold coin in front of you, for gold content, you don't test a silver coin in another room to determine how much gold is in the coin in question, you test the gold coin in front of you. Testing a different, silver coin, tells you nothing about the coin in question. To find out about it, you test it." There are genetic tests deemed valid that can now be done on one cell of a less than one-hundred cells embryo. The tests are valid because the individual is already alive and testable even at embryo age.

[Mr. Silverback]

Done. Happt trails and God Bless.

[plusone]

Interesting idea. Can you expand on the 24 week theory?

[Mr. Silverback]

Oops. Make that "Happy trails."

[plusone]

I agree with the last two paragraphs of your response. I don't approve of using aborted tissue for stem cell research. The rest of your reply seems to suggest that conception is your starting point for life. For you, life and personhood coincide. That's fine, I don't argue your right to hold this view, and it may be correct. I believe that our soul is bestowed later, at 12 weeks. I didn't elaborate yesterday since it was late and I was tired. TTOQ, as you have pointed out, is an old belief system. On a different thread, it was pointed out to me that this is extra-Biblical, not a part of the Bible, but instead a separate ancient notion. It is an attempt to explain why the baby begins to kick. The science explanation is that the fetus becomes animate at the point where the nervous/muscluar system developes sufficiently to start sending and receiving signals. The muscles begin to twitch as the nerves begin to fire. The religious explanation is that the baby becomes 'alive' at this point, seperate from its mother since it has received its own soul. But both explanations focus on the same fact, the animation of the fetus. If the notion of TTOQ is correct, then abortions before this point would not strictly be murder, since the fetus has no seperate soul yet and is still developing tissue. If the scientific reason is the proper explanation for why the baby begins to move at this time, then abortion after this point might register as pain to the fetus, since the nervous system is now working and can receive these signals. So abortion past this point would be torture. It is possible, of course that both science and religion have focussed at this point simply because they are both right. The nerves function because of the reception of a soul. This also helps to explain away the trouble with miscarriages. Since most happen before the 12th week, these fetuses have not yet aquired a soul, so there is no 'God murder'. They are just tissue at this point. What other purpose would there be for God to start these souls at conception, only to let them die a few weeks later? What is the point of that?