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.

You offered : "But both explanations focus on the same fact, the animation of the fetus."
Perhaps you missed the part where I explained that the individual human being in the womb is very physically active well before the Mother can feel 'kicking'. 'Animation' is occurring long before the woman can detect it, as proven with ultrasound visualization of the earlier than 12 week babies in the womb. This truth makes your arbitrary choice--based on a false assumption that no kicking is occurring earlier than your chosen 12 weeks--self cancelling, based on the reason for your citing the 12 week 'significance'. Take a quick read through http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.htm (CLICK HERE) to have a more up-to-date understanding of the truth regarding the early life of the individual human being in the womb.

You offered : "Since most (miscarriages) 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?"
You appear to need to make rational apology for the fact of miscarriages, somehow 'exonerating' God, as if God cancels the life of the individual human being conceived yet who miscarries. I don't buy the notion that God needs an apology fabricated by His creation, least of all a fabrication that on the one hand removes God's hand from the reality of conception yet an explanation that seeks to give God an excuse for not allowing certain conceived individual lives the 'full lifetime' of our affectation. Your assertion is self-cancelling, illogical in its first assumption then altered assumption to fit the assertion.

You ask : "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?" Indeed, noting the underlined portion, what IS the purpose of that?... You appear to answer your own questions by cancelling God's purview in favor of your inability to fathom the mind of God. That you cannot assign reason for some phenomena doesn't cancel the likelihood that there is reason that you cannot imagine because you cannot know the mind of God.
From a scientific point of view, the reason for conception and the first approximately eight weeks of growth and development--which transitions the embryo to the organ manifesting fetus--is a connected (thus the word continuum) reality, an unbroken continuum of a lifetime begun at conception and growing through many transitional ages, from conceptus, to blastula, to embryo, to fetus, to newborn, to toddler, to pubescent, etc.
To arbitrarily cancel the reality of the first ages along the continuous lifetime merely because you have yet to know why God allows or perhaps causes the early end to so many lifetimes begun is the same irrational worship of right to privacy 'choice' with which abortion defenders cancel the truth of the life of individual human beings in the womb. The poster P_A_I made the same cancellation, by instantly dissembling the clear wording and meaning of the Declaration of Independence --unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness-- where the inalienable right to life is mutated (in deadly fashion which now counts more than 40,000,000 individual lives sacrificed to the notion of 'privacy trumps Life') to mean (to her) 'right to private life'.

Your arbitrarily chosen 12th week at once carves off the previous weeks of alive individual life as if cutting a length of string from a specific piece of string, then claiming that the piece snipped off was never part of the rest of the string. The eleven weeks prior to your arbitrarily chosen beginning of individuality become fair game for inhuman, dehumanized exploitation and violence against alive individual humans. And that is what the author of the essay sought to address, since therapeutic cloners will gladly cite your false assumption because it would allow them unencumbered (laws not written proscribing their exploitations) access to conceive individual human beings and give life support to these individuals until they reach a cell differentiation age when they would be killed for their body parts. After all, according to P_A_I, pursuit of happiness is to be taken as superior to the unalienable right to Life, especially the Life of the newly conceived and all the way to 12 weeks by your scheme of conception.

I am offering to you a better course, to take the truths of science as a means to support the right to Life, since we cannot KNOW as a certainty that the soul takes up residence witht he body 'not until week 12 from conception'. Why would you arbitrarily assign the advent of 'soul to body' at twelve weeks, when to err (and science indicates the 'animation' is present much before your chosen date) is to do violence to the soul-body sacredness you want to honor? If you are to err, why not err on the side of the Life you wish to honor, rather than err on the side of the dehumanization some seek to exploit?

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

When Do Human Beings Begin? former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception. Personhood Begins At Conception Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is. Is the Unborn Less Than Human?Dr. Beckwith explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth. When Does a Human Become a Person? Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley. Does Life Begin At Implantation? Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage, that fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception. Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- Biochemist, Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data. The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation. The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument.

The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- By Brian D. Parks- comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others. The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? Professor Beckwith introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights". A Woman's Right Over Her Body? In an excerpt from his book The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Schwarz addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body. Unplugging a Bad Analogy Doris Gordon, the National Director of Libertarians For Life, refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson. Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars Professor Kaczor addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle. A Fetus is NOT a Parasite chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson. Begging the Question Dr. Viera explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?

What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults.

I Was Once a Fetus -- mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss .The Real Problem with Abortion -- Mark McNeil examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.

The Mary Ann Warren approach to dehumanizing unborn alive individual human beings actually centers on the same error regarding the difference in organ and organism.

What allowed in vitro fertilization to become a part of the accepted manipulation of nascent human life was this false graying of the factual reality, namely, at conception cells from organs of the parents unite to bring into being a whole organism, not a sub-unit of an organism, the whole organism within a single cell that then proves it exists by expressing its unique individuality with cell division and growth.

Defenders of the indefensible try to parallel a tumor to the organism growing toward birth. They have in fact (like Hank above, and P_A_I and plusone and Torie) ignored the first error, adopting that error as a foundational resource with which to forward the lie they have chosen to believe. A tumor is a sub-unit (a false organ) of an organism As proven by the genetic 'fingerprint' of the tumorous tissue. An embryo is an organism, not a sub-unit of the woman in whose body that embryo may reside even before implantation, even if in a petri dish.

Your religious ideas on cloning have nothing to do with constitutional law, imo. #262 P_A_I I was not offering religious arguments, but you asserted erroneously that I was.

My belief is the government's single most important priority is the protection of its citizens. I include the unborn in this group, based on the fact that they were created and are alive within the United States' borders. War Slut
Yep, you admit wanting big brother to regulate life itself. From conception to grave. #270 P_A_I_ You purposely mischaracterize the posts of others, as it fits your gradually emerging agenda.

I asked you a simple question regarding the Declaration of Independence : “Does the progression 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' makes sense in syllogistic flow?” post #275
You ignore the questioned offered in a civil manner, to offer your telling question …Does the concept of a private Life, Liberty under the rule of law, and the Pursuit of private property, -- make any sense to your "syllogistic flow"? #278 P_A_I And the clear offering of your #278 post is the twisting of unalienable right to LIFE, to read unalienable right to private life. Were those your words in post #278, or not? If those were not your words, then you have a right to name me a liar, but since those were clearly your words, you are spinning when you try to call me a liar in order to divert attention from your words, from your effort to twist the clear meaning of the Declaration of Independence words. You are like Maureen Dowd, inserting words or omitting words as it fits your agenda regardless of cancelled honesty.

In post #315, you assert : 'Life begins' in a murder trial when your peers agree that one was taken. That is a patently absurd assertion. What a way to start a new line of argument! And, you’ve again tried to subtly divert the notion of unalienable right to LIFE as endowed by the Creator (now that is a religious assertion of a generic nature) to mean a right defined by a jury recognition or a court’s authority.

Also in #315, you assert : - Why isn't this done? (i.e., why isn’t your speciously arranged methodology of murder trial used to stop abortion) Because unconstitutional banning is seen as the solution.. Roe v Wade put a stop to such fiat local 'law'. The Roe decision was judicial fiat, establishing a ‘penumbra’ of personal privacy as superior to the unalienable right to LIFE. The Roe decision subordinated the LIFE of the unborn to the privacy of the host human, contradicting the clear meaning of the Dclaration of Independnce which place LIFE before liberty or pursuit of happiness (which assumes, for whatever purpose, the notion of privacy rights as essential to pursuit of happiness). [That juxtaposition of unalienable rights is an important distinctionto be addressed again at the end of this post, regarding the cloning methodology.]

It is not surprising that you would spin the fiat of Roe, where right to privacy was deemed superior to the unalienable right to LIFE, to be the standard for 'politically correct' application of the Constitution, but you will not spin that crooked needle at FR without being exposed and opposed.

Every individual human lifetime begins at each individual’s unique conception, when a unique organism comes into existence and remains alive, growing, changing, expressing its individual human life along a continuum of being. This alive individuality will occur whether inside a human host or not ... and science is on the verge of providing artificial life support to allow this unique individual human being to gestate through the full 40 weeks of change without every being in a human host once conceived. That class of individuals will be property (just like when slavery was legal but immoral) to the technicians providing the life support and as property will be fair game for killing and harvesting at any age along their alive continuum of human existence, with no protection afforded by our laws unless we the people work this paradoxical situation out now, to agree upon what and when is a fellow individual human being.

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.