Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Danya · 03-22-2002, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Your position creates an interesting situation in which it is acceptable to destroy embrios willfully created during IVF, but not acceptable to destroy an embrio that someone may have had no intention to create through sexual intercourse.

Furthermore, it is acceptable for the "mother" to destroy the embrios when the embrio's life has no impact on hers, but it is unacceptable for her to do the same when the embrio will have a dramatic impact on her life and body.

Like I said, these observations don't negate your argument, but I find it an odd situation.

I think they do negate the argument. Any reasoning you give as to why abortion should be illegal also applies to IVF cases. Otherwise infertile women (couples) are being given choices that are being denied to fertile women. Either way you are trying to give the law power to decide how or when you can conceive.

If there is a difference between the embrios in question than it should go both ways. If you feel it isn't immoral to destroy unused IVF embrios why should there be a problem using them for stem cell research?

Viti · 03-22-2002, 03:54 PM

Jamie...cross post but you said it better.

bd-from-kg

Quote:

This is pretty garbled, but the person she (?) heard this from probably had the same idea that I have. Of course an embryo (or an unfertilized egg for that matter) is “life” and even “human life”. And a fertilized egg is more than just ”human life”; it’s a human being. But is it entitled to legal protection? That is, is it a “person”?

To shed some light on this, let’s consider a conceptus with a fatal genetic defect such that it will inevitably die before the end of the second week. Is it a human being? Yes. Is it a person? IMO, no.

Why? Well, in the old 12-week-old fetus thread I argued that anyone who will naturally and foreseeably become capable of cognition is a “person” – i.e., is entitled to legal protection. To make this as clear as possible: by “foreseeable” I mean only that it can be foreseen as a “reasonable” possibility; i.e., the individual has a “fighting chance” to become capable of cognition. And by “naturally” I mean that it will happen in the normal course of events” – i.e., unless someone intervenes to prevent it.

This is not intended to exclude everyone who will never be capable of cognition; it is a sufficient condition but not a strictly necessary one. Individuals who fail to meet it are given legal protection in some cases. But these exceptions are made for the sake of others who do meet the criterion. On the other hand, no one who meets this criterion is denied legal protection, except for the unborn.

Now it is clear that the conceptus with a fatal genetic defect does not meet this criterion: it is not reasonably foreseeable that it will become capable of cognition. And an embryo in a test tube also doesn’t meet it: it is not going to become capable of cognition unless extraordinary measures are taken.

As to whether this is an appropriate criterion for “personhood”, this is a long argument. At this point I can only refer you to the “12-week-old fetus” thread cited earlier.

Another closely related argument is that, while it is immoral to interfere with a process that will eventually transform somone capable of cognition into someone who actually has cognitive function, we are not obligated to initiate such a process – i.e., to create the conditions in which it might foreseeably occur. This is essentially the same principle by which we are obligated not to kill someone, but are not usually obligated (at least legally) to take positive action to keep someone from being killed. There’s a fundamental difference between causing something to happen and choosing not to prevent it from happening. Again, this principle would seem to permit allowing “test-tube embryos” to die even if one believes that it is immoral to take active steps to kill a conceptus developing naturally in its mother’s womb. Similarly, while most of us would consider it immoral to kill someone in a coma who is expected to recover, that doesn’t mean that one is obligated to perform an operation without which he will never recover consciousness.

Here’s another example which may shed some light on the question. Suppose that a conceptus has no genetic defect, but happens to be incompatible with its mother – that is, if it remains in her womb it will die. Are we obligated (assuming the necessary technology has been developed) to remove it from its mother’s womb and transfer it to someone else? I would say “no”. But if were true that we were obligated to take whatever positive measures might be necessary to keep such a fetus alive on the grounds that it’s a “person” we would be obligated to do this.

One more consideration: it may soon be possible to “clone” individuals from a single cell. At that point every cell in your body will be a “potential human being”. Will we then be obligated to take whatever measures are needed to turn each of these cells into a fully developed human being? The suggestion is ridiculous. This sort of thing is why the “naturally and foreseeably” clause has to be part of the criterion for personhood. But this is the clause that excludes test-tube embryos from being considered “persons”.

This should be enough, I hope, to show that it’s reasonable to be pro-life but to have no objection to IVF procedures. But I would certainly not argue that it’s unreasonable for a pro-life person to oppose them either. Among other things, while a test-tube embryo does not meet my “sufficient but not necessary” condition for personhood, that still leaves the door open for the possibility that it qualifies for personhood on some other grounds. And of course, not all pro-lifers agree with the criterion for personhood that I’ve proposed here. The most that I would be willing to say is that I see no clear reason to oppose IVF procedures, and in the absence of any such reason I would not think of interfering with other people’s freedom by forbidding them.

This seems to contradict your views on responsibility and voluntary actions on the Abortion; Yes? No? Why? thread. Could you please explain this?

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]

bd-from-kg · 03-23-2002, 01:04 PM

Danya:

Quote:

Any reasoning you give as to why abortion should be illegal also applies to IVF cases.

Is this a canned response you've prepared for anyone who is pro-life but does not oppose IVF? Have you actually read my post? If so, why don't you have anything to say about the argument I actually presented? For example, how does the reasoning I gave for why abortion should be illegal also apply to IVF cases?

Quote:

If you feel it isn't immoral to destroy unused IVF embrios why should there be a problem using them for stem cell research?

Where did I say that I oppose stem cell research? Again, did you read my post or is this just another canned response?

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]

bd-from-kg · 03-23-2002, 01:21 PM

LadyShea:

Quote:

This seems to contradict your views on responsibility and voluntary actions on the Abortion; Yes? No? Why? thread. Could you please explain this?

I'd be glad to as soon as you explain specifically how you think I've contradicted myself.

But in any case, this is a fallacious argument. (It's sometimes classified as a form of ad hominem.) Even if it were true that my arguments on the two threads were contradictory, that would show only that one of them must be wrong. You would still need to show which one is wrong. You certainly can't discredit both arguments this way, as you're attempting to do.

Finally, a tech note: It's bad form to quote a long post in its entirety if you intend only to make a very short comment about it. It wastes everyone's time.

Viti · 03-23-2002, 01:32 PM

I quoted your whole post so there would be no question of context.

The way I read your views (and I am open to correction if I interpreted wrong) is that you think it is okay to destroy embryos that were intentionally created, but it is not okay to destroy an embryo if it occurs as a consequence of sex. If the embryo has value in and of itself (as you also seemingly claim), then how do you justify differentiting based on how the embryo came to be?

alek0 · 03-23-2002, 05:02 PM

I think the stance of pro-lifers who don't have objection to destruction of extra embryos in IVF is that those embryos would have never developed in a human being if left in the environment they were created. I do find that stance hypocritical though. Woman has made them on specific purpose of getting pregnant, it seems more fair to force her to use them all up then to force a woman who had sex with no intention of getting pregnant to give birth. For the record, I think in any possible case forcing pregnancy on someone would be wrong, and my only objection to IVF is that women are frequently not told of all the risks and side effects of the procedure.

From my point of view, abortion isn't an issue of right to life, it is an issue of right of abode. If a woman hasn't granted the fetus right of abode in her body, out it goes and that's that. Then it's up to pro-lifers to find a way to get those fetuses to survive without involving unwilling female bodies if the abortion upsets them so much.

This whole issue "destroying extra embryos is OK, abortion is not" seems very similar to "forcing medical care against wishes of the patient is OK, euthanasia is not". Seems that many people are OK with anything that prolongs human life (even if it is against the wishes of person in question) or creates even more humans (as if it weren't more than enough existing already) but I realy see no logic in it. Especially when arguments such as "left to natural course of things" are used, since pro-lifers use argument "natural" only when it suits them.

Danya · 03-24-2002, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg:
Danya:Where did I say that I oppose stem cell research? Again, did you read my post or is this just another canned response?
[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]

You did not say one way or the other. I guess if you think it's ok to use them for stem cell and also ok for them to be created in the first place then it's a question you can't help me with so lets move on.

I did read your entire post and also the ones in your link. It appears you are not expressing your point well enough to make it clear how they can logically be different...only why YOU think they are different.

I have no canned responses and have never really debated this issue in quite this much depth before. But I see where it starts to turn in circles and no longer becomes productive when we cannot even agree on whether or not one embryo is a person while another embryo is not.

Quote:

if it were true that my arguments on the two threads were contradictory, that would show only that one of them must be wrong. You would still need to show which one is wrong. You certainly can't discredit both arguments this way, as you're attempting to do.

Quote:

Have you actually read my post? If so, why don't you have anything to say about the argument I actually presented? For example, how does the reasoning I gave for why abortion should be illegal also apply to IVF cases?

I will be glad to give you my argument. I also request the same from you. Please read the post and respond to how the reasoning I give applies to both IVF and abortion cases.

Quote:

anyone who will naturally and foreseeably become capable of cognition is a �person� � i.e., is entitled to legal protection.

Which means your definition of a person is a thing that will become something else. When you put the word 'become' in the sentence you are no longer defining what it is but what it could become. The same way that I say an embryo can become a person. That does not make it a person. It could become cognative but that does not mean it IS cognative or that it even will be cognative.

Quote:

To make this as clear as possible: by �foreseeable� I mean only that it can be foreseen as a �reasonable� possibility; i.e., the individual has a �fighting chance� to become capable of cognition. And by �naturally� I mean that it will happen in the normal course of events� � i.e., unless someone intervenes to prevent it.

I don't see how the word 'naturally' can be included in your definition. This is why it doesn't work. Whether or not a pregnancy begins and ends naturally has no bearing on whether or not you are dealing with a person.

I understand your use of the word to mean with or without intervention.

A woman can abort naturally or with intervention.
A woman can have a child naturally or with intervention. The fact tht you prohibit one from being interfered with and not the other does not change the fact that it either is a person or it isn't.

I believe an embryo that is in a petri dish is no more a person than the one that is in a womb because both have the possiblity and fighting chance to either become a person or abort. Either one can happen in a natural way or by intervention. My definition of a person is the same either naturally or with intervention while yours is not. (My definition being that an embryo is not a person only a potential person.) Your argument allows you to say intervention is acceptable for only one of the woman and you get to choose which one.

If both carried to term they will both result in a person being born. The IVF baby is no less a person than the one that was created without interference. The naturally concieved baby is no less so if it is delivered by c-section (which is interference.)

My definition: An embryo is not a person. It is a potential person.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Danya ]

Jamie_L · 03-25-2002, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea:
If the embryo has value in and of itself (as you also seemingly claim), then how do you justify differentiting based on how the embryo came to be?

There's a difference between "value" and the legal definitions required to determine what gets defined as a person for the purposes of legal protection.

I think bd-from-kg's position, if taken in total, is not that the embryo deserves legal protection just because it's an embryo. The embryo deserves protection (i.e. - is a "person") if and only if it has the potential to develop into a cognitive human being through the course of natural events.
(He will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong.)

The consequence is that it is really the location inside and the use of the mother's body that is more critical to defining the embryo as a person, not the fact that it is a fertilized egg with the potential to become a thinking human being.

Intuitively, this set of definitions doesn't sit right with me. It seems embryos either should or should not be defined as persons, and that their locations and dependencies on other human beings shouldn't effect that definition. I'm still in the process of developing my own opinion on what the definitions should be, so for the time being I don't have a cohesive arguement.

Jamie

Viti · 03-26-2002, 12:46 PM

bump

bd-from-kg · 03-26-2002, 02:21 PM

alek0:

Quote:

Woman has made them on specific purpose of getting pregnant, it seems more fair to force her to use them all up then to force a woman who had sex with no intention of getting pregnant to give birth.

I don’t follow you here at all. (1) The fact that you made something for a certain purpose does not obligate you to use it for that purpose – or to use it at all, for that matter. (2) As I pointed out on the abortion thread, if you do A knowing that it is likely to result in B, so far as the law is concerned you intended B. (3) There seems to be no relationship that I can see between the two women that entails any kind of “fairness” relationship. It would seem that the question of what constitutes fair treatment of the one is completely unrelated to the question of what constitutes fair treatment for the other. (3) You’re using “force” in completely different ways here. “Forcing” in the first case means forcibly performing an unwanted surgical operation on her; “forcing” in the second means forbidding her to do one specific thing. But forcing someone to something is a very different thing from prohibiting her from doing something. (4) What would be “fair” to the women is beside the point. What matters is whether anyone’s rights are being violated.

Quote:

For the record, I think in any possible case forcing pregnancy on someone would be wrong.

Huh? The first woman wants to become pregnant; the second is already pregnant. Who is having pregnancy forced on them?

Quote:

If a woman hasn't granted the fetus right of abode in her body, out it goes and that's that.

This has been discussed on the abortion thread. The idea seems to be that you can place someone in your body without their consent, in circumstances such that they couldn’t leave if they wanted to, and would die instantly if they did, and then kill them because you didn’t “grant” them the right of abode. Sorry, I don’t get it.

Quote:

This whole issue "destroying extra embryos is OK, abortion is not" seems very similar to "forcing medical care against wishes of the patient is OK, euthanasia is not".

The similarity you see here is entirely obscure to me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2002, 01:32 PM	#15
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	I quoted your whole post so there would be no question of context. The way I read your views (and I am open to correction if I interpreted wrong) is that you think it is okay to destroy embryos that were intentionally created, but it is not okay to destroy an embryo if it occurs as a consequence of sex. If the embryo has value in and of itself (as you also seemingly claim), then how do you justify differentiting based on how the embryo came to be?

03-23-2002, 05:02 PM	#16
alek0 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 640	I think the stance of pro-lifers who don't have objection to destruction of extra embryos in IVF is that those embryos would have never developed in a human being if left in the environment they were created. I do find that stance hypocritical though. Woman has made them on specific purpose of getting pregnant, it seems more fair to force her to use them all up then to force a woman who had sex with no intention of getting pregnant to give birth. For the record, I think in any possible case forcing pregnancy on someone would be wrong, and my only objection to IVF is that women are frequently not told of all the risks and side effects of the procedure. From my point of view, abortion isn't an issue of right to life, it is an issue of right of abode. If a woman hasn't granted the fetus right of abode in her body, out it goes and that's that. Then it's up to pro-lifers to find a way to get those fetuses to survive without involving unwilling female bodies if the abortion upsets them so much. This whole issue "destroying extra embryos is OK, abortion is not" seems very similar to "forcing medical care against wishes of the patient is OK, euthanasia is not". Seems that many people are OK with anything that prolongs human life (even if it is against the wishes of person in question) or creates even more humans (as if it weren't more than enough existing already) but I realy see no logic in it. Especially when arguments such as "left to natural course of things" are used, since pro-lifers use argument "natural" only when it suits them.

03-26-2002, 12:46 PM	#19
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	bump

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.