Abortion Issue Hits The work Scene

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 29 2005, 12:15 PM'] No, you are in error. Each somatic cell (tissue cell) does hold the potential to become another complete person via cloning. This, from the human genome project on reproductive cloning:

"Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Dolly was created by reproductive cloning technology. In a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth. "

The fertilized egg is not a complete person. It is at best a potential person. It requires nutrients and time for differentiation, and ultimately the infusion of a rational soul.

What part of this are you challenging? [/quote]
I would challenge that every cell in your body has the potential to become another person. Your claims on cloning are really a red herring. I could say that every rat has the potential to grow a human being because scientists are capable of causing rats to grow human tissue. However, that would be fallacious, because a rat, left to his own devices, doesn't develop human tissue unless we experiment on him. Similarly, a skin cell lives, then dies, and falls off of your body, and decomposes when left to itself. On the other hand, a fertilized egg grows up to be a human being when left to its own devices. And you can't say it has to be implanted into the uterus because that process is already taken care of in normal human reproduction. So what we're dealing with is something that has the obvious potential for life, and really is life. And something else, which is human experimentation and meddling in order to force something into a direction we have chosen. The two are quite incomparable.

[Aloysius]

each cell does not hold potential if left in their natural state and place. all the cells, as a whole, hold the potential left in their natural state and place to become a human being. the individual cells left in their natural state and place as part of the zygote do not have the potential, only the whole.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 29 2005, 02:24 AM'] Yes. I think in forming moral decisions one should alway try to be right, not simply follow "the party line" which frequently is wrong.

And if there is positive doubt that an embryo is ensouled, and if a person's life was dependent upon receiving fetal stem cells, who would have the greater right to the stem cells, the fetus only possibly but not probably ensouled, or the adult person who is certainly ensouled? [/quote]
The burden of proof lies on those who say ensoulment has not taken place.

In the case of suspected personhood, you MUST assume personhood until proven otherwise. Anything else is unfair and morally bankrupt.

It is necessary to ensure positively there are no persons inside a condemned building before demolition. The same is true of a womb and abortion, at whatever stage.




The idea that we should destroy healthy yet preborn humans to harvest cells for sick humans is ridiculous and arrogant, not to mention selfish.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 29 2005, 12:29 PM'] I would challenge that every cell in your body has the potential to become another person.  Your claims on cloning are really a red herring.  I could say that every rat has the potential to grow a human being because scientists are capable of causing rats to grow human tissue.  However, that would be fallacious, because a rat, left to his own devices, doesn't develop human tissue unless we experiment on him.  Similarly, a skin cell lives, then dies, and falls off of your body, and decomposes when left to itself.  On the other hand, a fertilized egg grows up to be a human being when left to its own devices.  And you can't say it has to be implanted into the uterus because that process is already taken care of in normal human reproduction.  So what we're dealing with is something that has the obvious potential for life, and really is life.  And something else, which is human experimentation and meddling in order to force something into a direction we have chosen.  The two are quite incomparable. [/quote]
(1) From the Canadian Health folks, there is this. Perhaps you will find it helpful and may want to study the subject of human reporductive cloning further.

"Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT)
The transfer of the nucleus from a somatic cell of an individual into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. A somatic cell can be any cell found within the human body except the sperm or egg (ie. germ) cell. The resulting embryo would be genetically identical to that of the individual. "

Do you have evidence to the contrary you would like to present?

(2) I said nothing about rats. This is your assertion to defend (or withdraw).

(3) Clearly a fertilize egg does not develop at all when it is "left to its own devices." It dies and is expelled as with the vast majority of human fertilized ova.

(4) And recall the issue being argued here. It is the moral status of the preembryo. That is, if a fertilized humn egg automatically has an immaterial, immortal, rational soul, as claimed by some prolife folks.

Edited May 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='May 29 2005, 04:26 PM'] The burden of proof lies on those who say ensoulment has not taken place.




[/quote]
Absolutely not!

The claim that something has taken place cannot be presumed. It must be proven.

And, in the case of doubt, a human being certainly ensouled has greater rights than en entity which might be ensouled, but not certainly.

[God Conquers]

When dealing with a situation such as an IN UTERO human, a being which MOST CERTAINLY has the potential to one day be born, its pretty clear where the burden of proof lies.

A Hunting Trip

"Hey LittleLes, I think we can bag this stag if we split up."

"Sure sounds like a good idea."

10 minutes later in the bushes

*rustle rustle rustle*

BLAM! BLAM!

No reason to check before shooting. We'd always better presume no person.

[Semalsia]

I don't think abortion can be justified, but neither do I think it can be said to be wrong.

Moral things are like that a lot.

Little Less is not going to get anywhere. You either take potentiality into account or you don't.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 30 2005, 05:46 PM'] I don't think abortion can be justified, but neither do I think it can be said to be wrong.

Moral things are like that a lot.

Little Less is not going to get anywhere. You either take potentiality into account or you don't. [/quote]
If that's the case Semalsia, then isn't it prudent to err on the side of preserving life? Or do you think that it doesn't matter either way?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Kizlar']If that's the case Semalsia, then isn't it prudent to err on the side of preserving life? Or do you think that it doesn't matter either way?[/quote]

Perhaps in a ideal word. But the world we live in is far from such.

The child could bring harm to the mother, you know.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 30 2005, 06:09 PM'] [quote name='Kizlar']If that's the case Semalsia, then isn't it prudent to err on the side of preserving life? Or do you think that it doesn't matter either way?[/quote]

Perhaps in a ideal word. But the world we live in is far from such.

The child could bring harm to the mother, you know. [/quote]
Well that's not nearly as common these days in the western world as it used to be. In fact, with modern medicine it is exceedingly rare. Besides, I'd rather have a law on the books outlawing abortion except when the mother's life is threatened than having abortion be entirely legal and considered a "right." It's not good, but it's the lesser of two evils.

[Didacus]

First, before debating this issue, a definition of human life must be brougt forth and accepted by all who take part in the discussion. Otherwise, you will simply turn around the issue, much like you have been doing.

Let me bring forth a definition of human life:

[b][font="Geneva"]Un etre qui possede le potentiel d'un epanouissement de vie digne de l'humaniter.

A being having the potentiel of enjoyment of life dignifying that of humanity.[/font][/b]
(enjoyment is not a proper translation to epanouissement, but I am french so if someone could help me find better this would be appreciated)


I advance the notion that the destruction of an unborn child is murder, since it is the destruction of a being having the potential of life which is dignifying of humanity.

A sperm, a zygote, other human cells, are not a human life, since it takes an external intervention in order to prompt them to grow into humans.


Now, of course, feel free to advance your own definition of life, human life and whatever. The coarse of the discussion can have two avenues: 1. from the definition of human life it is proven that abortion is wrong, or 2. from the definiton of human life, it proven that no one is purely human and thus no one has the right to live. NEVER has a definition, which I have encountered, EVER NOT HAVE ONE OF THE TWO EFFECTS ABOVE WHEN ARGUING IN FAVOR OF ABORTION.

I would be very interested in your definition, LittleLes. Try to invent a definition of 'human life' that would exclude a fetus, yet keep you in it. Think about it, its a lot harder than it looks.


[u]Now lets entertain LittleLes for a few paragraphs.[/u]

An unborn child, left to its proper course, purely speaking cannot be born, since it is dependant of his/her mother's womb. A one year old child, left to its own, is equally doomed, since he/she depends on his/her parents for nurishment and other essentials of life. Being in a state of dependance, is in no way a prerequisite to being human. Or would you be ready to kill off 1 year old children as well, since after all they are only parasites incapable of proper comprehension? Certain similar arguments can be made in mass killing teenagers as well, but let's deal with one parasite at a time shall we?

Killing an unborn child, is taking from him/her their potential to live their life. Weither this child is one year old, 100 years old, or unborn, this is the core of why murder is wrong. The unborn child HAS the potential to live a full life, and none have the right to prevent them from living it.

A zygote, by itself, IS NOT A HUMAN. As it is, it cannot become a human being and live a full human life. [b] There requires intervention[/b] in order to give this zygote the potential to become human, to enjoy life in a manner dignified within humanity.

HOWEVER, once the meddling has been done, and a 'clone' has been inplanted where-ever in a manner in which it (he/she) can grow into a human, then essentially a manner of conception has occured, and this new being is human with all the potential of his/her equals. Killing such a clone at this stage would be murder as well.

This meddling into cloning is much like having sex. Sex is the meddling that enables a fetus to be created. THAT IS WHERE THE TWO COMPARE, not in their state, but in their manners of 'conception'. Destroying a sperm (zygote), is not murder, since left to its own it cannot evolve. But once the sperm (zygote) conceives in a mother's womb (the zygote is meddled with and a clone-fetus is created in a lab), THEN, a new being is created and has every right to life.

The point is simple; before the meddling, not human. After the meddling, human. Arguing this point is simply playing devil's advocate.

To quote you:
"Realistically, one has only a cell which has the potential to become a human being."

They have the potential to become human beings, but they are not. Every sperm has the potential to fertilize, but until they do, them things are not human, they have not the potential to grow and evolve as human beings.


again, your own quote (typo and all!):
"But the original quesition was at which point in their development a person exists. Not a potential person. "

The 'potential' to become a person exists in the state of 'sperm' or skin cell, which through the act of meddling (sex?) can become a fetus. When does a person exist? AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION. Or are you just not paying attention and playing devil's advocate?


yet another quote:
"Each somatic cell (tissue cell) does hold the potential to become another complete person via cloning. "

Via cloning? That's like saying every sperm has the potential to become human and thus is precious so stop flushing them down the toilet (like teenage boys do all the time!) and keep them in a jar instead. YES, a sperm has the potential to become, but is not, a human being. What's your point? But once conception has occured, this 'potential' becomes reality.


Let me see if I can explain this in other, simpler terms:

CLONING:
Requires external intervention in order to create a human being.

ABORTION:
Requires external intervention in order to destroy a fetus (a human being).

To blurr these two questions/statements is silly, and barely worth attention. It is simply a distraction from the reality being presented to you. IT IS A RED HERRING.

You want to red herring us, well let me red herring you!

I failed also, to notice when you believe a being is ensouled. Personally, I believe that eveveryone is born without a soul.

The following is part of an advertisement that was published in the NEW YORK times during a municipal election year:


[i][font="Optima"]Proof of having a soul clearly occurs when one is able to communicate complex emotional ideas - aka, when one reaches the age of ten. Before then, it is completely natural to 'dispose' of the non-human parasitical offsprings at any time, in any manner economically viable. Their bodies can be sold as compost in many states - and thus provide to their parents (aka, the victims), at least a small return on investments.

It should be encouraged that ALL PARENTS take their children to be evaluated in the clinic closest to them in case of their children malfunctionning. This should be done PRIOR to the offspings reaching the age of ten years. Failure to do so will close the window of opportunity of disposing modern day society of a potential problem and leading cause of over loaded prisons. It is every parent's duty within society to have their offsprings evaluated by a qualified physician at the latest when their opffsprings obtain the age of nine, and dispose of any malfunctionning offspring before the creator of the universe gives them a soul, for this soul may be wasted on undeserving individuals destined for hell.[/font][/i]




[u]
[font="Geneva"][b]KILL ANOTHER FETUS NOW, I DON'T LIKE CHILDREN ANYHOW![/b][/font][/u]

[Winchester]

The position that the fetus is not human is the position of cowards, the wilfully blind, or excusably ignorant persons. I would reckon most people fall into the last category. This does not make them bad people, but it does make the cowards and wilfully blind woefully responsible for their cowardice and deceptions, respectively (but not respectfully.)

The arguments against the humanity of the unborn are niether scientific nor logical. A creature falls within its species upon having the genetic makeup of the species. This occurs at conception for human beings.

I urge all intelligent humans who support abortion to cast off the fetters of Catholic morality which makes them oppose the execution of the helpless/worthless. Many people have managed to do this and are recorded in our history books for study.

Hitler would be a good example.

And yes, I am comparing you to Hitler.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 29 2005, 02:36 AM'] ensoulment occurs at fertilization, even if it is in vitro. this is because in the natural order of things, fertilization forms something that will naturally grow into a human being. when it is made unnaturally in an area where it will not become a human being it is still ensouled.

an embryo in its natural state and place will be man, and as such is to be considered man already. your delayed ensoulment can only hold water if you also hold the Aristotelian view that we begin as plants, develope into animals, and then become humans. and regardless, it is considered a sexual sin in the Catholic Moral system throughout all of Catholic history.

we consider an embryo, no matter where it is created, to be rightly ordered in the design of life to have been created in the woman where it will become man. as such the embryo is considered a potential man. [/quote]
(1) If ensoulment occurs at fertilization because something is formed that will naturally grow into a human being, then when human tissue cells divide in culture into daughter cells, the nucleus of which if implanted will also grow into human beings, there is ensoulment. Should all of these cells and their daugter cells too be baptized?

(2) The concept of a purely "animal" soul preceeding the infusion of an immaterial immortal soul is logical. The daughter cells above and the zygote are animated by an "animal" soul , as indeed are animals thoguthout their lives. The immoratal soul, not generated biologically but separately by God, is added, when, as Aquinas maintained, the body is ready to receive it. At the very least, there must be an individual before ensoulment can occur.

[LittleLes]

Didacus wrote:

To quote you:
"Realistically, one has only a cell which has the potential to become a human being."

They have the potential to become human beings, but they are not.

*****************Les replies,

Exactly! This applies to a cultured human somatic cell as well as a zygote.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Winchester' date='May 31 2005, 12:24 AM'] The position that the fetus is not human is the position of cowards, the wilfully blind, or excusably ignorant persons.


[/quote]
Lets try to correspond on the rational plane, rather than a purely emotional one.

The single nuclear transfer cell and the zygote are by species human, but not yet human beings in the sense of having a rational immortal soul. That soul is immaterial not biological, and is infused once the indiviudal is formed and the body ready to receive it.

Edited May 31, 2005 by LittleLes