The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The semantics of embryo research and human cloning > Comments

The semantics of embryo research and human cloning : Comments

By Brian Harradine, published 16/6/2005

Brian Harradine argues stem cell research and human cloning cheapens the value of human life.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Nah, I'd prefer not to head elsewhere. But what board where you talking about?
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 3:18:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>the requirement to choose itself, was forced rather than voluntary

With due respect Deuc the original decision to have sex was voluntary, so whether the requirement to choose is forced or voluntary is irrelevant.

>What exactly is the woman consenting to? I would expect that she wouldn't be consenting to give the man control over her body.

We have don’t have full ownership of our own body, we cannot sell our body parts for example nor can we use our body to inflict harm on other or maybe even our own bodies at least to some degree. So to me the ‘it’s my body’ argument is over inflated when she allows a life she wants to hosted and values that human life even though it isn't a person.

So temporarily hosts the life due to the fact she entered the act willingly knowing this could happen and that we cannot have a foundational moral concept –valuing a human life- combined with arbitrariness. Oh I will value this unborn life I want but I won’t when it doesn’t suit me.

It would be like a racist saying well my criteria for personhood is being white and although I value 'white' human life, since blacks don’t fit that criteria I can blow thatb life away.

>except that society trying to discourage child birth might logically adopt the position that the man should pay. (Even if that is unfair.)

Sorry didn’t get this point?
Posted by Neohuman, Sunday, 3 July 2005 8:58:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>Valued after everything has been considered. I'm talking inherent value.
I think we could have a whole separate debate on inherent or constructed value.
I would not that from the traditional Pro-Life stance human life and therefore an unborn human life has an inherent value.

> The downside is that grieving people would be distressed by it, emotions would run high. Emotions and psychological effects need to be considered.

What about emotions and psychological effects of the father who wanted the child or his family?

>No that's not what I was referring to; its my understanding that inducing birth isn't possible in all cases of premature birth, but there's a good chance I may be wrong about that. If I'm not, then caesarian would be needed and I think that once you have one it is dangerous to have a subsequent natural birth.

Good point but consider many adults would run into a burning house to risk their lives for their children or even if it were only one child. If they are willing to risk that for a post birth life why not face a much lesser situation if it saved their child’s life. Would you run into a nuclear reactor to save your child even though it might mean you cannot father more children?

But what if they didn’t want the child? I must be a hard arse to me she again faces that risk if she has vaginal sex . But then I would allow an abortion for a severely handicapped child whereas a hardcore catholic would still allowed t even if it meant no more children. So I still don’t escape non-rational decisions.

But anyway since I think that when it comes down to it all ethics is the reasoning of both objective and non-rational factors you will never get a perfect complete system.

As to the forum I wanted to see the Sea of Faith movement (religious humanists) do a forum A guy from there suggested http://faithfutures.org
Posted by Neohuman, Sunday, 3 July 2005 9:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"so whether the requirement to choose is forced or voluntary is irrelevant."
As I said it is non-conclusive point. Only relevant if blame, risk or responsibility is critical, but they presuppose that abortion is wrong.

"We have don't have full ownership of our own body,"
You're going to need more than that if you want to justify giving the man control over whether the woman aborts, because this alone opens up the question of other forms of slavery. I think it is silly to assume an intention for her to accept anything other than that she might get pregnant.

Where we lack sovereignty it is meant to be for our own good, or as necessary to prevent coercion & harm to other people; either way it is restricted for the benefit of some person. I agree that you can't base a right to abortion solely on the grounds of personal sovereignty, but it is a valid interest, one which ordinarily outweighs any reasons to force a continued pregnancy.

"when she allows a life she wants to hosted and values that human life even though it isn't a person."
Huh? There isn't an issue in this situation.

"So temporarily hosts the life due to the fact she entered the act willingly knowing this could happen and that we cannot have a foundational moral concept -valuing a human life- combined with arbitrariness."

If you claim that human life having great value is a fundamental moral rule, then you are assuming the result. (And it again raises issues of Mr.Brain Stem.) In its common usage I think "value for human life" is more of a shorthand/rhetorical/superficial statement than a literal rule, ie. equivalence to personhood, not all human life. Again, I don't claim that human life with potential has no inherent value.

I think you're reading in an arbitrary condition that isn't there, but that may be because of me trying to deal with multiple scenarios at a time. Normally the decision of whether it is morally OK to abort doesn't depend on whether a child is wanted except in how it affects
Posted by Deuc, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 2:01:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the choice made, but in exceptional circumstances (eg. survival of the species) there is arguably a moral obligation to give birth.

"It would be like a racist saying well my criteria for personhood is being white and although I value 'white' human life, since blacks don't fit that criteria I can blow thatb life away."
Well if you can show that *my* criteria for personhood is arbitrary, I'd be happy to change my position, but I don't think it is.

"Sorry didn't get this point?"
If the community can't afford to support population growth, then as a disincentive and necessity, it makes sense to require contribution from both parents.

"I think we could have a whole separate debate on inherent or constructed value.
I would not that from the traditional Pro-Life stance human life and therefore an unborn human life has an inherent value."
I think we're using different terms here, in my usage having inherent value doesn't mean it can't have additional, subjective value for other reasons. The potential for sentience has inherent value, but I consider it to be on a different order of magnitude compared to actual sentience.

"What about emotions and psychological effects of the father who wanted the child or his family?"
Mere emotional hurt isn't enough to force a 9mth course of action on a person. There is a world of difference between the likelihood and severity of psychological damage that could result from knowing research was being conducted on someone you knew closely and something that hardly developed and you never "knew" at all. Those that have significant psychological damage in the latter case would surely be abnormally vulnerable to such things.

"So I still don't escape non-rational decisions."
It's good that you can realise when you are doing this. For the burning house, experimenting on the brain-dead etc, what is happening is emotional attachment & response. Ethics/logical moral evaluation can't ignore that people have these feelings, but the extent of protection for them is hard to place; would you *force* a parent to run into the house/reactor?
Posted by Deuc, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 2:01:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuc sorry that I didn’t reply, too many things have been going on and to tell the truth I think we are on different wavelengths, without any indication from other posters to give us some sort of reference to gauge our arguments. I’m somewhat disappointed that the new thread has taken off where we have had this one basically to ourselves. You think it is too late to join in the other? Hate to think though that I’m on the same side as Aslan.
so whether the requirement to choose is forced or voluntary is irrelevant."

As I said it is non-conclusive point. Only relevant if blame, risk or responsibility is critical, but they presuppose that abortion is wrong.
We agree to disagree (ATD)

"We have don't have full ownership of our own body,"
You're going to need more than that if you want to justify giving the man control over whether the woman aborts, because this alone opens up the question of other forms of slavery. I think it is silly to assume an intention for her to accept anything other than that she might get pregnant.

I drive home from the pub drunk I don’t intend to kill someone in a crash. Actions have consequences and we hold strong views on those that take or endanger other lives.

Where we lack sovereignty it is meant to be for our own good, or as necessary to prevent coercion & harm to other people; either way it is restricted for the benefit of some person. I agree that you can't base a right to abortion solely on the grounds of personal sovereignty, but it is a valid interest, one which ordinarily outweighs any reasons to force a continued pregnancy.

Some see the life a pre-born valuable enough to warrant no harm

"when she allows a life she wants to hosted and values that human life even though it isn't a person."
Huh? There isn't an issue in this situation.
ATD

"So temporarily hosts the life due to the fact she entered the act willingly knowing this could happen and that
Posted by Neohuman, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 10:41:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy