The article misses the main argument from Dignitas Personae: it is immoral to implant frozen embryos, with time they lose viability so they die. So they are never part of the equation even if they are living human beings.
I’d even go as far as to say that I’m leaving out the most important problem — that abortion directly kills babies — and that complicated questions of who to save cannot justify intentionally killing innocent people. I don't think the "Wouldja save ε born children or N embryos (where N >> ε)?" question is meant to directly justify abortion or destructive embryo research. I think it's more meant to be a reductio ad absurdum on the idea that embryonic humans are equal in value to born humans, a key feature in arguments against abortion (the name of your organization being but one example). Without that premise it's a lot more difficult to justify, for example, making elective abortion illegal in the case of rape or other hard cases. In addition to the four practical tips above, I think this article does a good job illustrating why thought experiments like this are flawed and why people do not always select the obvious, utilitarian answer when posed with them. http://www.weeklystandard.com/an-honest-answer-to-that-dumb-twitter-rant-on-abortion/article/2010099#!
I consider myself very prolife, but, unless the human race were in danger of dying out, I cannot see myself choosing the embyros, even if the death of the infant would be instantaneous. That does not make my opposition to abortion any less valid, and here is why. First, I do not think this senorio directly relates to abortion, because the embryos would be too young to be a detectable pregnancy, were they inside their mothers. Also, one does not have to see human embryos as being on the same level as infants to oppose abortion. The situation the article discussed about born people in a deep coma is likely the closest senorio. The fact that I oppose the unnecessary killing of cats and dogs--even if done painlessly--does not mean that I think their lives are equal to that of infants, either. As I pointed out on another thread, there are more realistic hypotheticals that could make abortion supporters squirm. Let's say the US were to adopt some very progressive reforms--which have been the hallmark of liberalism--such as universal and affordable health care, six months paid parental leave (to be divided between parents), strong protections for pregnant women in regards to both the workplace and education, better societal support for struggling families, free/affordable daycare, and free college for the first two years. Lets sweeten the pot a bit more by adding that some long-term contraceptive measures--such as hormonal implants and sterilization--would be free of charge. The catch (isn't there always one)? The abortion supporters would have to agree to legally protect unborn humans under the 14th Amendment, which would mean that abortions would be illegal, with the exception of saving a mother's life. Now there is a much more BOLD senorio for abortion supporters who consider themselves "progressive". Do they hold that the "right" for a mother to be able to kill her very young son or daughter as more important than all the other ideals mentioned, the ideals that progressives are SUPPOSED to stand for??
by perfect scenario i meant the positive part obviously. 6 months are nothing. i see your overall scenario as giving up some things AND losing the right to have an abortion. oh and i just noticed that only the first 2 years of college are free.
so you advocating, women give up their rights to their bodies for some porridge?. I consider all that you offer to be worthless in the face of losing bodily autonomy. Maybe some women would go for it, i certainly would NOT. i actually believe women should be able to have ALL of the things you advocate AND access to abortion. Even if you offered me 1 million dollars to gestate, i would refuse it. Bodily rightss should not be for sale.
So, as I said, the ability to be able to kill your very young child is more important to you than such things as universal and affordable health care (which would likely save tens of thousands of lives every year), six months paid parental leave (to be divided between parents), strong protections for pregnant women in regards to both the workplace and education, better societal support for struggling families, free/affordable daycare, and free college for the first two years. Got it!
If women are willing to give up their bodily rights for these benefits, well they are stupid. I don't see why women cannot have all of these benefits and still get to RETAIN their bodily rights which include terminating a pregnancy. Nine months of pregnancy is ALOT more than an inconvenience, and chilbirth is a life threatening event. You want to limit women's options not expand them, why should i favor such?
This was a hypothetical, Gladys. I have heard versions of the "mass destruction of fertilized eggs" senorios for the last 40 years. I have never liked them, or thought that they had any logic to them. I am only giving the abortion supporters who just 'can't stop with them' a small taste of their own medicine by exposing their abortion-extremism in my OWN senorios--which are much more realistic, BTW.
Yes my bodily autonomy means more to me then all of those things. Why would i want to trade my bodily freedom for those things. Education paid leave and day care does not replace 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth. Yes the ability to NOT be pregnant for 9 months is more important.
Again, this one thing is more important to you than, say, families going bankrupt owing to medical expenses, and ending up on the streets. People being refused life-saving cancer treatments because they find themselves too sick to work, thus losing their employer-dependent health insurance. Or a very sick child who no longer qualifies for medical care because he/she has reached their 'lifetime limits' of care. You would rather see this than to prohibit elective abortions. And people call prolifers "extreme"??
How about we have all those things and keep elective abortions legal? Why does there have to be a trade off? You accusing me if not caring about families going bankrupt is ridiculous. I am for universal healthcare AND abortion rights.
It was a "hypothetical", remember? Just like the "burning fertility clinic", except mine a tad more credible. It was not based on the idea of "liking" either alternative, but which one is considerd the 'lessor of two evils". You simply answered honestly.
Except that what you propose are benefits that are already a reality in certain European countries AND abortion is legal. If other countries can have both, then we should be able to have both also.
For the THIRD time, it's a hypothetical. It is not prolifers like me--or prolifers UNLIKE me-- who started these 'thought experiments'. Can you comprehend that??
I already asked you why can't we have ALL of it? You are the one trying to take away something a right to bodily autonomy . I don't want to take any rights away. I think all those things you propose can be In ADDITION to retaing abortion rights. so again why can't we have all of that and keep abortion legal?
One can always evade an issue if one wishes. When pro-lifers are confronted with the "burning fertility clinic," we could, if we wish, reply, "Oh, I would grab the fire extinguisher!" But why should we refuse to confront legitimate issues?
Yes, prolifers are supposed to answer honestly--and not "cheat"--and yet the abortion advocates cry fowl when we play our own 'mind games' with them. HMT, after HE brought the whole "burning fertility clinic" nonsense up, flat-out refused to answer my challenge to him at all. Maybe they should really absorb the saying that "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
Thanks for the good tips. It wouldn't be hard for the pro-choicer to alter the thought experiment in order to level the playing field: "what would you do if you were in a fertility clinic about to be struck by a MOAB bomb, so that nobody would know what hit them, and you had to choose between saving a born baby with whom no one had bonded yet, and ten frozen embryos who were guaranteed to be born?" I'm already familiar with this thought experiment, so I'm quite sure I WOULD save my little embryo brothers and sisters, and I have replied to pro-choicers accordingly. If I had been in such a clinic situation without any mental preparation, I might have saved the born baby.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Timothy: "So, the fact that the embryos cannot feel pain, and that the infant can, has no weight in your moral decision/equation?"
I roughly tried to respond to the variations at the end of the post. If all things are equal, I'll save two embryos over one infant. If the two embryos are orphans and the infant has a family that loves it, that makes for an emotionally complicated choice, and not all things are equal. But then again, that choice is complicated whether they're embryos or just other infants. Two orphan infants or one infant with a family that loves it? I don't know.
"Two orphan infants or one infant with a family that loves it? I don't know." If you were truly "pro-life" you would not have to consider this for one second. There would be no question here. You'd save the two orphans. But you've just admitted that you would consider saving one baby's life instead of two babies' lives....meaning you'd consider indirectly killing one baby. No offense meant, but given that you would consider killing a baby (which, everyone agrees, is infinitely worse than aborting a zygote) it seems rather hypocritical that you're so adamantly against all abortion.
"killing a baby (which, everyone agrees, is infinitely worse than aborting a zygote)" ?? The post of Timothy Brahm's you're replying to says, "If all things are equal, I'll save two embryos over one infant." Would he say anything very different about two zygotes? I wouldn't.
He's just told us that outside circumstances affect the value he places on human life/the way he would treat human life. That's exactly the case many pro-choicers make, and it's beyond ironic that neither of you realize this.
Does that have anything to do with my reply to your assertion "killing a baby (which, everyone agrees, is infinitely worse than aborting a zygote)"? If you would like to discuss a new topic, I'm open to the possibility, but please first make clear the status of our discussion about that assertion – do you retract that assertion?
No because his response to the original question of "do you save 10 embryos or 1 child" was that he would "probably save the child." The quote you referenced earlier was about a clearly impossible scenario where "all things are equal" between 2 embryos and the one child. That's about as relevant as saying "if all things were equal between 2 ladybugs and an airplane." But speaking of his original response, let me just highlight his disturbing use of the word "probably. As in, "I would probably save the baby." He won't even FULLY commit to saving a living, breathing, feeling human baby over 10 microscopic, non-sentient cells! That is unbelievably twisted,and shows just how warped the extreme end of the "pro-life" ideology truly is. A live human baby is worth infinitely more than 10 embryos...and a human baby has infinitely more LIFE in it than 10 embryos. Anyone who truly values and respects REAL human life understands this. Anyway, none of this has anything to do with what I was responding to originally. What i was responding to was the fact that he said he would consider saving one infant over two infants because of how that particular infant was situated. This proves that he is not actually "pro-life," since HE would indirectly yet needlessly kill one baby. He isn't pro-life, just anti-abortion.
You have written, "No, [I do not retract the assertion 'everyone agrees that killing a baby is infinitely worse than aborting a zygote,'] because . . ." And your "because" consists of various criticisms of TB's thinking. Those criticisms of TB's thinking may have some merit in themselves. We can discuss them later. But your refusal to retract your assertion is not justified by TB's thinking or your criticisms of it, because TB's thinking and your criticisms of it don't shed much light on "everyone agrees . . ." What DOES shed light on "everyone agrees . . ."? Well, for instance, TB wrote "If all things are equal, I'll save two embryos over one infant." And I commented, "Would he say anything very different about two zygotes? I wouldn't." I think that painlessly killing a baby with whom no one has yet bonded is no worse than aborting a zygote that is otherwise guaranteed to be born. So it is not true to say "everyone agrees that killing a baby is infinitely worse than aborting a zygote," right?
"Two orphan infants or one infant with a family that loves it? I don't know." The answer to this is very, very obvious to anyone genuinely motivated by the intrinsic value of human life.
If you do, then you admit there is a difference.
I don't think the "Wouldja save ε born children or N embryos (where N >> ε)?" question is meant to directly justify abortion or destructive embryo research. I think it's more meant to be a reductio ad absurdum on the idea that embryonic humans are equal in value to born humans, a key feature in arguments against abortion (the name of your organization being but one example). Without that premise it's a lot more difficult to justify, for example, making elective abortion illegal in the case of rape or other hard cases.
In addition to the four practical tips above, I think this article does a good job illustrating why thought experiments like this are flawed and why people do not always select the obvious, utilitarian answer when posed with them.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/an-honest-answer-to-that-dumb-twitter-rant-on-abortion/article/2010099#!
That does not make my opposition to abortion any less valid, and here is why.
First, I do not think this senorio directly relates to abortion, because the embryos would be too young to be a detectable pregnancy, were they inside their mothers.
Also, one does not have to see human embryos as being on the same level as infants to oppose abortion.
The situation the article discussed about born people in a deep coma is likely the closest senorio.
The fact that I oppose the unnecessary killing of cats and dogs--even if done painlessly--does not mean that I think their lives are equal to that of infants, either.
As I pointed out on another thread, there are more realistic hypotheticals that could make abortion supporters squirm.
Let's say the US were to adopt some very progressive reforms--which have been the hallmark of liberalism--such as universal and affordable health care, six months paid parental leave (to be divided between parents), strong protections for pregnant women in regards to both the workplace and education, better societal support for struggling families, free/affordable daycare, and free college for the first two years.
Lets sweeten the pot a bit more by adding that some long-term contraceptive measures--such as hormonal implants and sterilization--would be free of charge.
The catch (isn't there always one)?
The abortion supporters would have to agree to legally protect unborn humans under the 14th Amendment, which would mean that abortions would be illegal, with the exception of saving a mother's life.
Now there is a much more BOLD senorio for abortion supporters who consider themselves "progressive".
Do they hold that the "right" for a mother to be able to kill her very young son or daughter as more important than all the other ideals mentioned, the ideals that progressives are SUPPOSED to stand for??
I would not expect abortion-supporters to like my scenario.
That was kind-of the point.
i actually believe women should be able to have ALL of the things you advocate AND access to abortion.
Even if you offered me 1 million dollars to gestate, i would refuse it. Bodily rightss should not be for sale.
such things as universal and affordable health care (which would likely save tens of thousands of lives every year), six months paid parental leave (to be divided between parents), strong protections for pregnant women in regards to both the workplace and education, better societal support for struggling families, free/affordable daycare, and free college for the first two years.
Got it!
You want to limit women's options not expand them, why should i favor such?
I have heard versions of the "mass destruction of fertilized eggs" senorios for the last 40 years.
I have never liked them, or thought that they had any logic to them.
I am only giving the abortion supporters who just 'can't stop with them' a small taste of their own medicine by exposing their abortion-extremism in my OWN senorios--which are much more realistic, BTW.
Yes the ability to NOT be pregnant for 9 months is more important.
People being refused life-saving cancer treatments because they find themselves too sick to work, thus losing their employer-dependent health insurance.
Or a very sick child who no longer qualifies for medical care because he/she has reached their 'lifetime limits' of care.
You would rather see this than to prohibit elective abortions.
And people call prolifers "extreme"??
Why does there have to be a trade off?
You accusing me if not caring about families going bankrupt is ridiculous. I am for universal healthcare AND abortion rights.
Just like the "burning fertility clinic", except mine a tad more credible.
It was not based on the idea of "liking" either alternative, but which one is considerd the 'lessor of two evils".
You simply answered honestly.
It is not prolifers like me--or prolifers UNLIKE me-- who started these 'thought experiments'.
Can you comprehend that??
You are the one trying to take away something a right to bodily autonomy .
I don't want to take any rights away. I think all those things you propose can be In ADDITION to retaing abortion rights.
so again why can't we have all of that and keep abortion legal?
HMT, after HE brought the whole "burning fertility clinic" nonsense up, flat-out refused to answer my challenge to him at all.
Maybe they should really absorb the saying that "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
It wouldn't be hard for the pro-choicer to alter the thought experiment in order to level the playing field:
"what would you do if you were in a fertility clinic about to be struck by a MOAB bomb, so that nobody would know what hit them, and you had to choose between saving a born baby with whom no one had bonded yet, and ten frozen embryos who were guaranteed to be born?"
I'm already familiar with this thought experiment, so I'm quite sure I WOULD save my little embryo brothers and sisters, and I have replied to pro-choicers accordingly. If I had been in such a clinic situation without any mental preparation, I might have saved the born baby.
"So, the fact that the embryos cannot feel pain, and that the infant can, has no weight in your moral decision/equation?"
If you were truly "pro-life" you would not have to consider this for one second. There would be no question here. You'd save the two orphans.
But you've just admitted that you would consider saving one baby's life instead of two babies' lives....meaning you'd consider indirectly killing one baby. No offense meant, but given that you would consider killing a baby (which, everyone agrees, is infinitely worse than aborting a zygote) it seems rather hypocritical that you're so adamantly against all abortion.
?? The post of Timothy Brahm's you're replying to says, "If all things are equal, I'll save two embryos over one infant." Would he say anything very different about two zygotes? I wouldn't.
If you would like to discuss a new topic, I'm open to the possibility, but please first make clear the status of our discussion about that assertion – do you retract that assertion?
But speaking of his original response, let me just highlight his disturbing use of the word "probably. As in, "I would probably save the baby." He won't even FULLY commit to saving a living, breathing, feeling human baby over 10 microscopic, non-sentient cells! That is unbelievably twisted,and shows just how warped the extreme end of the "pro-life" ideology truly is. A live human baby is worth infinitely more than 10 embryos...and a human baby has infinitely more LIFE in it than 10 embryos. Anyone who truly values and respects REAL human life understands this.
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with what I was responding to originally. What i was responding to was the fact that he said he would consider saving one infant over two infants because of how that particular infant was situated. This proves that he is not actually "pro-life," since HE would indirectly yet needlessly kill one baby. He isn't pro-life, just anti-abortion.
And your "because" consists of various criticisms of TB's thinking. Those criticisms of TB's thinking may have some merit in themselves. We can discuss them later. But your refusal to retract your assertion is not justified by TB's thinking or your criticisms of it, because TB's thinking and your criticisms of it don't shed much light on "everyone agrees . . ."
What DOES shed light on "everyone agrees . . ."? Well, for instance, TB wrote "If all things are equal, I'll save two embryos over one infant." And I commented, "Would he say anything very different about two zygotes? I wouldn't."
I think that painlessly killing a baby with whom no one has yet bonded is no worse than aborting a zygote that is otherwise guaranteed to be born.
So it is not true to say "everyone agrees that killing a baby is infinitely worse than aborting a zygote," right?
The answer to this is very, very obvious to anyone genuinely motivated by the intrinsic value of human life.