[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce, I was just pointing out that scientists and philosophers disagree on when life begins, let alone when personhood begins. It’s not a slam dunk definition as you claim.
[/quote]
No, there is no argument when human life begins. Personhood is making up a name for something (that cannot be truly even defined) because whoever it is can’t come to terms with the factual reality of killing a living human being.
There are always numerous exemptions to and use of the “person hood” argument.[/quote]
What is your opinion of the embryological view?[/quote]
The ability to split doesn’t make it non-human.[/quote]
Would you agree though that there is a qualitative difference, and it isn’t properly called a person at that point?[/quote]
It is a live human. Personage, is too tricky a line to walk. I would best define it as a mental self. BUT, people in a coma, or mentally handicapped, or infants may or may not have that. Hell, I lose that every night when I go to sleep.
Like I said before, does a living human have inherent rights or not? If you are pro abortion, you must (if intellectually honest) admit that you don’t believe living human beings have inherent value.[/quote]
I agree personhood is a little harder to define.
So let’s say it is a living human as you believe. Do you believe all living humans have the same inherent right to life?
[/quote]
yes.[/quote]
Given that, do you believe it is exactly as morally reprehensible to destroy a surplus 100 embryos created through in vitro fertilization as it is to murder 100 men and women?[/quote]
For the actual killing, yes. BUT there is a difference in the pain and suffering caused. I also think it’s wrong to take someone’s brother or parent or friend. Those would be additional “sins”.
Edit: Now, if those embryos you were killing was against the will of the mother and father, then it would be more comparable. I also object to your use of surplus. [/quote]
Let’s say the 100 men and women were killed through a chemical agent that caused no pain or suffering. And let’s say they were an entirely self-contained community living on the top of a mountain with no outside contact.
Identically morally reprehensible?
And should the crime be punished identically?[/quote]
I see no real difference morally then. If both acts are intentional.[/quote]
Ok, one last question. Would you then consider doctors and researchers who destroy embryos to be cold-blooded killers, worthy of being prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including capital punishment in states that allow it?
[/quote]
Yes. But I also do think they should be allow to create them in the first place.[/quote]
This may surprise you, but…kudos. I applaud your consistency.
I wouldn’t personally go that far. I suppose I intrinsically place a lower value on a human embryo. For example, I have no moral issues with using embryos to conduct research that would save lives, although I wouldn’t support such research if it meant killing people.
I’ve asked myself why that is, and this quote from James Wilson is probably as good an explanation as any:
[quote]A fertilized cell has some moral worth, but much less than that
of an implanted cell, and that has less than that of a fetus, and that
less than that of a viable fetus, and that the same as of a newborn
infant. My view is that people endow a thing with humanity when it
appears, or even begins to appear, human; that is, when it resembles a
human creature. The more an embryo resembles a person, the more claims
it exerts on our moral feelings. Now this last argument has no
religious or metaphysical meaning, but it accords closely, in my view,
with how people view one another. It helps us understand why aborting
a fetus in the twentieth week is more frightening than doing so in the
first, and why so-called partial birth abortions are so widely
opposed. And this view helps us to understand why an elderly, comatose
person lacking the ability to speak or act has more support from
people than a seven-week-old fetus that also lacks the ability to
speak or act…
Human worth grows as humanity becomes more apparent. In general, we
are profoundly grieved by the death of a newborn, deeply distressed by
the loss of a nearly born infant or a late-month miscarriage, and (for
most but not all people) worried but not grieved by the abortion of a
seven-week-old fetus. Our humanity, and thus the moral worth we assign
to people, never leaves us even if many elements of it are later
stripped away by age or disease.[/quote]