I'm not sure. Participation from either side is fine, but I saw @Suave 's post as trying to derail the discussion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
An ethical question for the "embryos are people" crowd
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
I would say the Doctor acted ethically as I assume a natural death is just that 'natural' under the religious views that the Doctor chose to operate under. Artificially causing the death of a normal fetus would though be considered unethical.
Fair enough.
I was just curious as to how my positions are perceived to fall into that dichotomy. Because I often have to “translate” between the Western and Dharmic platforms. So I honestly don’t know where I fall, since I’ve been accused of both. I was merely curious
I could have referred you to an excellent fertility doctor near me. He accomplished miracles. The only problem is that the parents kept wondering why their kids looked exactly like the doctor. The doctor explained that all kids looked like that, and showed pictures of many kids of many parents, and all of the kids looked like the doctor.
Cursing genetic tests, the doctor finally admitted that he was the father of the many babies because he knew that infertile fathers could not sire kids.
There are many men willing to help out with your dilemma. The problem is, they offer the same solution as the doctor.
The couple next door adopted a dog. But I keep staring at that dog's face. Where have I seen that face before? Of course we now know that gene-splicing different species is possible. I suppose that we could enjoy many years of chess games with the dog, and he could drive to the store to pick up his own Alpo. Unless, of course, he spots a cat, then we'd have to pay for a few fences that the car crashed through.
I know what you mean about sending kids to a house where they meet their demise. I bought a Kidd extinguisher, and, so far, it hasn't extinguished any kids, but I still feel a bit guilty for buying it.
I wonder about the ethics of those who experiment on living creatures. I spoke to Dr. Shaw about his cat experiments. He had moved his cats (top of their heads cut off, electrodes implanted) to our labs because his labs were inundated with thousands of protestors. His experiment was to chemically prevent the cats from blinking then measure with glass tubes filled with conductive liquid, the brain reactions to patterns on a computer screen. Horizontal and vertical strips were shown. Dr. Shaw said "they are happy little kittens." I wonder if he would have been a "happy little physicists, experimenting outside of his field of expertise," if electrodes were placed in his head?
Experimenting with the creation of life (birthing with a track record of failure), seems a bit off. Some would say that such birthing attempts (despite adjusting medicines) is a natural process, and God wouldn't be against anyone for trying to give birth.
What about the possibility that the baby would have been born, but due to the difficulty of the birthing, the baby might have been born handicapped (physically or mentally). Would it be so bad to have a damaged baby and make a damaged adult? Is that what we tell handicapped people? (You were damaged, but that's okay)?
At UC Irvine, 750,000 animals per year were destroyed in experiments. After the experiments were over, the animals were put to death. Presumably it was illegal to cut off the top of a cat's head and stick in electrodes (I've had this conversation before), but those restrictions were ignored. I personally knew a female student whose job was to wring the neck of chicks merely because they were male, and they didn't need male chicks for their particular experiment.
I asked a protest organizer if they would consider a compromise, perhaps reuse test animals in other experiments, to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of animals, and they said no. That seemed like an odd response. They would rather push for zero tolerance than achieve partial success.
I met a teenaged girl at a PETA booth, who was collecting to save kittens from starvation. They were cute kittens. But I pointed out that kittens are carnivores, and by saving them, they either have to convert to vegetarian diets or eat meat, and meat comes from some sentient animal. Often the sentient animals are herbivores (they don't hurt any creatures, except for swatting flies with their tails).
I was shocked to find that most of the cows slaughtered for meat live only to 9 months of age. It is not profitable to let them get older. It was common practice to shove an electrode up their butts and electrocute them (quickly and mercifully, though sometimes something went wrong and they lived).
It seems that we have choices to make when we slaughter for meat or raise carnivores, or step on worms by accident, or try to have babies knowing that we have a track record of failures. We could find compromises to save as many lives as possible, as long as we are willing to compromise our key values and admit defeat (saving many lives in the process). We could find compromises in the form of adoption for those who can't conceive naturally.
I think that we need to stop and think of alternatives before proceeding.
We live in an imperfect world, and are often confronted with difficult choices.
After the 911 attack, President W. Bush double-dog-dared us not to "cut and run" (quotation of W. Bush stolen from a previous politician), and to "stay the course" (quotation of W. Bush stolen from a previous politician), and to kill 1,000,000 Iraqis though Iraq was at peace, and there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism. Then W. Bush tried to lie about Niger selling yellow-cake Uranium to Iraq. W. Bush made us feel like chickens if we didn't try to save the US from terrorists, and he lied about intel that only he had access to. Our choice was to be a sitting duck, attacked at the whim of the al Qaeda, or go to war to defeat the enemy (though the enemy didn't have a country). Such difficult choices are presented periodically throughout our lives.
Zalenski has been faced with the choice to defend the Ukraine, or bargain with Putin to remain in charge of the Ukraine under the leadership of Putin (and become a satellite nation of Russia). The US is faced with the same choice....do we fight for Ukraine, or do we let Russia grow in power? Which is better for the Ukrainian people.
Suave
Simulated character
Most anybody would consider embryos spilled onto the ground from petri dishes as non-people. They should likewise consider miscarried or aborted embryos detached from their maternal parents' umbilical chords as being non persons. Most everyone could logically reason why embryos should not be classified as people. I am astounded there are numerous minds of the "embryos are people" persuasion
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
IMO:
From my Indian understanding, embryo being upto 8 weeks, Atma or life force definitely has not entered yet. So, killing is not an issue here (poll options 1 and 2 are out)
Furthermore, from Advaita POV, Atma (our true being) is indestructible, meaning you can't kill Atma. So again, killing is not an issue here (or ever even). Again options 1 and 2 are out
So, from my Advaita POV the doctor did not morally violate anything, as in providing killing something. Maybe she went against her personal feelings, that I don't know
Do you think the doctor's approach was ethical?
1)I consider an embryo a person. The doctor behaved ethically.
1) Ethical is not an issue here from my POV
2) I consider an embryo a person. The doctor behaved unethically.
2) Ethical is not an issue here from my POV
3)
a) I don't consider an embryo a person.
b) I just like to click on polls.
3a) True, I don't consider an embryo a person
3b) True, I like to click on some polls (on RF)
So, I chose poll option 3, being most close
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
NOTE:
I am not an "embryos are people" person, so technically according to the title (I realized after posting my first reply to the OP) that the tread was not meant for me. On the other hand Poll option 3 made it clear that the poll was indeed also for me. Also, I do like polls
AND I like this thread, because it questions life vs death combined with justice. Intriguing subject for me, and important for me to know and understand about this
TITLE:
An ethical question for the "embryos are people" crowd
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
My, but that's an interesting reply, thinking that you did not think you were "killing babies" because you both evidently wanted a child so badly and had the misfortune of not bringing to term and fruition. I often wonder anyway why people want to have children if there are chances they will be burdens (drug abusers, malformed, and so forth). Although I know there are "benefits" in having children for some, I am convinced for others they have children so they have something to play with and pay attention to. And because it's the thing to do. Natural desire. Even if they "ruin" a child in more ways than one. But of course, it's the "natural" and societal thing to have children.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
I see nothing wrong with trying to get pregnant ethically even though you keep losing it over and over again, and I consider the embryo has a soul, however I advise you stop trying because of the emotional toll it takes on you. The embryo who dies is taken care of by God, nevertheless I'm sorry this happened to you. The nurse and Catholic administration of this hospital I think probably sees it this way, too. She acted ethically according to her beliefs in all probability. Abortion would be different, it is the deliberate killing of a embryo with a soul.
I remember when my wife lost one pregnancy, it was very hard on her, especially since she loved me, and it was my baby. She's a Baha'i, too, and just like me believes that God takes care of her lost baby. I don't like abortion, nevertheless I'm ambiguous about a situation like that. I doubt we should have laws forbidding abortions. Back-alley abortions are likely to result with bad outcomes.
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
In addition to my last comment, however, I am convinced that life is precious to God and that planned abortion is murder. (I didn't always feel that way, however.)
There are natural abortions where a woman does not even know she has a fertilized egg which can abort naturally without her knowledge. The outcome of that life is up to God, and that is where I leave it. I am not young now but if I had to live it all over again as the world is, I would definitely choose not to have children.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Good point, I didn't think of that in my previous post. In our case it just happened once, so it was not foreseeable.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I agree. 100% sure they will happen, and they already do happen in places less free to choose
IMO: IF God did not want abortion to happen, He would not have added that choice to the list of choices we can make, right?
Probably all is needed to make His Master Plan perfect. Some options I also understand better than others, and I also have Faith that God knows best, and knew what He did, when He did it. All for our own good, in the end we will realize I think
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Just so you know, there is a scripture in the Hebrew portion (commonly known as the Old Testament, a misnomer, however) that if a mother loses an unborn child due to malice, the offender is to be put to death. Thus it is to be concluded that even an unborn child's life is precious to God. Exodus 21: “If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges.23 But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow."
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
KEY word here is "malice"
A knife used to kill by a serial killer, one cannot equate to a knife used by a doctor to safe the mothers life due to complications while giving birth, even if the child dies during the operation
OR
IMO:
IF a woman is raped, and decides to end the pregnancy THEN it's totally fine.
Because being reminded of the rape each second of the rest of her 'miserable' life, by having his enforced child, enforced again by others, is a double horrible experience
+
I would call this second enforcement even premeditated torture, which is worse than killing, if others take her choice away from her.
Don't you agree?
That could be called even a second rape (as enforcing again something on her)
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Thank you, I appreciate that
Indeed a misnomer, at least for people who don't appreciate something old, and forget that old sometimes trumps news. I, for one, do appreciate old and new both, and my conscience usually has no problem to choose right in this context
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
KEY word here is "malice"
Hence I do not draw your conclusion from your particular verse (first quote above)
My Master declared that to Him everything in this Universe is precious. From His quote I do draw my conclusion
So, also the Mother who would die while saving her baby or v.v.
Or a mother dies emotionally IF being enforced to keep her enforced child by a rapist
The choice must be made, or let both die, like Bible analogy wit Samual and 2 women, both claiming the baby was theirs
In this case, "mother wants enforced baby aborted", do you condemn her and/or her choice?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
We have our own Laws now. Different countries different Laws.
These situations usually are dealt with Laws that apply to the country it happens
Question:
Do you think it would be always better to stick to the Laws given (made by God) in the Bible in the context of your quote?
OR
Is it best to follow the Laws (made by humans) in each country differently, and let each country decide for themselves?
AND
Maybe not even judge others when we don't like their Laws?
OR
Maybe try getting one Law for all?
Last edited:
And here a little Gedanken experiment inspired by current events, addressed to everyone believing 1 day years old embryos are babies.
Suppose you are in the Ukrainian resistance and you have a device that allows you to deviate the trajectory of incoming missiles by a few hundred meters.
there is an incoming Russian missile targeted at a school with 100 kids having lesson, and the loving parents waiting outside. You see that and activate your missile protection system. However, you realize that if you do that, the missile will hit a a big lab instead, with 1 million frozen viable human embryos, each in its Petri cell and consisting of a few human cells.
What would you do?
does the answer change if the missile targets the lab, and you have the power to deviate it to hit the school instead?
ciao
- viole
Suppose you are in the Ukrainian resistance and you have a device that allows you to deviate the trajectory of incoming missiles by a few hundred meters.
there is an incoming Russian missile targeted at a school with 100 kids having lesson, and the loving parents waiting outside. You see that and activate your missile protection system. However, you realize that if you do that, the missile will hit a a big lab instead, with 1 million frozen viable human embryos, each in its Petri cell and consisting of a few human cells.
What would you do?
does the answer change if the missile targets the lab, and you have the power to deviate it to hit the school instead?
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Honestly. I would direct the missile towards the embryos.
So you consider wanton disregard for an embryo ethical as long as the intended goal isn't miscarriage?