Pro-life or Pro-choice? What about both?

[3blake7]

I am actually really annoyed I haven't seen this come up in the public political debate.

 

Scientists have successfully removed a blastocyst, about 200 cell embryo, cryogenically frozen it, for 20 years, and successfully implanted it into a surrogate and a healthy baby was born. Why couldn't politicians just settle the debate and make it so that doctors, as they usually do, attempt to preserve life. The doctors, instead of destroying the embryo during the abortion procedure, would attempt to preserve it. There are already embryo adoption agencies opening up.

 

While we are beating around this bush, I think we need more gender equality around this subject. The mother-to-be and doctor should be legally obligated to make a reasonable effort to inform the father-to-be. If there is some issue with the father, that's what court is for. Some fathers-to-be are being victimized by mothers-to-be because of this loophole. If the father was the rape victim, the court should award him full custody. If the mother is the rape victim, then she should get it. However, the father can't make the mother get an abortion or not get one, it's still her body. Also, if employers give maternal leave I also think they should be legally required to give paternal leave.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Preserve them for what purpose exactly? Seems like a waste of money and resources.

 

Also, in the case of rape or incest, why should the father be informed? Or the courts? Courts are expensive and can take time that may force the decision of the mother, thereby restricting her rights. Not to mention the emotional toll of such a thing.

 

I am not sure how it is where you are, but in Australia I think either parent can take parental leave and have access to government assistance I'm addition to whatever is offered by the employer. I am unsure of the specifics, but I definitely agree that paid parental leave should be available to either parent.

[3blake7]

Our economy is filled with things we don't need that we want because it makes us feel better, lol. In America, literally the only thing people talk about is abortion, it's like they are oblivious that 99% of what elected representatives do is manipulate the economy with taxes. We have politicians that say they are pro-life and literally don't invest a single minute of their entire term on the issue and there are a lot of people that voted for them based on that single position. They think, "well he's pro-life, I'm pro-life, he must think like me and he will do what I would do on all the other issues." It's like a magic show over here, they pander people, tell them what they want to hear and then help out their rich buddies and corporations by manipulating the economy in their favor.

 

Just settling this debate, by any means necessary, would be progress because then maybe we can focus on something else.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Our economy is filled with things we don't need that we want because it makes us feel better, lol. In America, literally the only thing people talk about is abortion, it's like they are oblivious that 99% of what elected representatives do is manipulate the economy with taxes. We have politicians that say they are pro-life and literally don't invest a single minute of their entire term on the issue and there are a lot of people that voted for them based on that single position. They think, "well he's pro-life, I'm pro-life, he must think like me and he will do what I would do on all the other issues." It's like a magic show over here, they pander people, tell them what they want to hear and then help out their rich buddies and corporations by manipulating the economy in their favor.

 

Just settling this debate, by any means necessary, would be progress because then maybe we can focus on something else.

The debate was settled in Roe v. Wade. The fact that people still cling to it is likely because it's an easy argument to garner emotional responses from (on both sides) and (as you say) it is a good political selling point for some. Not sure I agree that politicians selling a pro-life agenda then don't go on to do anything about it post-election. It's true for some perhaps, but not true for all when you consider the recent spate of restrictive measures some states have passed or tried to pass.

[3blake7]

I don't consider Roe v. Wade The Debate. Roe v. Wade was a debate about the interpretation of the existing legal system. That interpretation or precedent can always be overruled in the future by the Supreme Court. It can also be overwritten with new and direct legislation. I think it's kind of hypocritical, the Supreme Court has ruled against the Legislative branch as being too vague in it's legislation on occasion, too unspecific and open-ended. Yet Roe v. Wade is exactly that, no specific law, just a bunch of philosophical precedents from other laws. I would consider the precedent set by Roe v. Wage to be overreaching, the Judicial branch crossed the line and became a legislator. I think Roe v. Wade is weak sauce and it's up to the people to decide. I am perfectly fine if individual states illegalize it or make it illegal to deliberately kill the embryo and require people to store the blastocyst. That reminds me, Death Warrants.

 

"You're being too vague!"

"You were vague last week!"

"Ya but I wasn't vague this week."

"Hypocrite"

 

It has begun!

[Endy0816]

We have a high rate of spontaneous abortion. There probably isn't much point in storing the vast majority. Personally I'm pro-choice, though lean towards the doctor suggesting giving the baby up for adoption in later term pregnancies.

[Gees]

3blake7;

 

Please consider the following:

 

I don't consider Roe v. Wade The Debate. Roe v. Wade was a debate about the interpretation of the existing legal system.

 

I would consider the precedent set by Roe v. Wage to be overreaching, the Judicial branch crossed the line and became a legislator.

 

In the above quoted statements, you appear to have a logical inconsistency. You can not state that the Judicial system used an "interpretation of the existing legal system", and then turn around and state that the Judicial system "crossed the line and became a legislator". Either they interpreted existing laws, or they wrote new law -- but not both.

 

It has been a while, but if memory serves, the Supreme Court examined the existing laws and found them lacking, so they wrote new law, while trying to stay within the boundaries of our Constitutional law. The questions are really very simple, "What constitutes killing another person?" and "When does an egg become another person?" The Court did not use philosophy, nor did it use religion or emotion to find its judgment -- it used evidence as provided by nature and science.

 

Nature tells us that a woman's body can spontaneously abort a fetus in the first three months of pregnancy when the pregnancy endangers the woman or sometimes when it is unwanted by the woman. This tells us that the woman takes natural precedence over the fetus. On the other hand, what is the difference between killing an eight month old fetus and killing a newborn? Very little as an eight month old fetus is viable and can survive -- often without the help of science. So the Court listened to what science had to say, then divided a pregnancy into three trimesters. In the first trimester, the woman takes precedence as nature dictates; in the last trimester, the fetus is viable and therefore must be protected as any human would be; the middle trimester can be legislated by each State in accordance with their social morals and culture.

 

In my opinion, Roe v Wade is some of the best legislation ever enacted by the Judicial system.

 

Regarding freezing embryos, it makes no sense. Would we save every seed that falls out of a maple tree? Would we want to preserve every dandelion fluff? Of course not. These seeds are made in an abundance so that waste is not an issue. The same is true for humans. This is why we do not try to save the leavings of every teenage boy's nocturnal dreams, or follow women around trying to preserve the monthly egg that they lose whenever they do not become pregnant.

 

Of course, you could argue that seeds and eggs are not embryos, but I would argue that embryos are not humans. If they were humans, then you would not need a surrogate mother; you could just stick the embryo in an incubator and cook it for nine months. Good luck with that.

 

If you really wanted to do some philosophy, you might want to question why people do not want babies and why they do not want families.

 

Gee

[3blake7]

What I was saying was that there wasn't any law specifically about abortion, there were laws about other things and they used the laws about other things and their underlying logic, to extrapolate what the law would be but in the process they took interpretation so far beyond the literal text that it was more like legislation and a prediction of what would have been legislated using past laws as a precedent. So, they went from interpreting the legal system to interpreting the future, lol. Also, in some cases, I will look for an example, the Supreme court has said that the law was too vague and the Legislative branch needs to be more specific. It's contradictory, two different philosophies that we switch between. Sometimes we are literal interpreters, you aren't allowed to write any laws that are open-ended and can be applied to anything and everything and other times we can take the underlying logic of one law and apply it somewhere which has no specific law written for it. And all branches of the government are guilty of this flip-flopping.

 

Sometimes the Executive branch invents new laws with interpretation, like Death Warrants.. Sometimes the Judicial branch does it, like Roe v. Wade.. Sometimes the Judicial Branch strikes down the Legislative branch because they make it too open-ended like Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.. lol

 

And of course the Executive branch is hypocritical too because it turns around and uses rigid interpretation to defend itself and then flip-flops and uses loose interpretation to give itself more power.

Edited May 20, 2015 by 3blake7

[StringJunky]

....

, but I would argue that embryos are not humans. If they were humans, then you would not need a surrogate mother; you could just stick the embryo in an incubator and cook it for nine months. Good luck with that.

The embryo is whatever it is genetically-encoded to be. If you put that embryo "...in an incubator and cook it for nine months". it will be a human baby.

Edited May 20, 2015 by StringJunky

[Gees]

StringJunky;

 

The embryo is whatever it is genetically-encoded to be. If you put that embryo "...in an incubator and cook it for nine months". it will be a human baby.

 

I call bullshit. If this were true, people would not use surrogates as they are too unreliable.

 

Are you sure that you are not mixing up your science with your sci-fi? You will have to provide evidence that this has been done successfully -- not theory -- but evidence, if you want me to accept your assertion.

 

Gee

[StringJunky]

StringJunky;

 

 

I call bullshit. If this were true, people would not use surrogates as they are too unreliable.

 

Are you sure that you are not mixing up your science with your sci-fi? You will have to provide evidence that this has been done successfully -- not theory -- but evidence, if you want me to accept your assertion.

 

Gee

How does, where an embryo develops determine what it will develop into?

[Gees]

StringJunky;

 

Please consider the following:

 

How does, where an embryo develops determine what it will develop into?

 

If you put a human embryo into something that will freeze and preserve it, it won't develop at all.

 

If you put a human embryo into a woman, it has a fair chance of developing into a human.

 

If you put a human embryo into an incubator and cook it, it will develop into waste.

 

The embryo is whatever it is genetically-encoded to be. If you put that embryo "...in an incubator and cook it for nine months". it will be a human baby.

 

You did not provide evidence to support your above assertion, and I doubt that you can.

 

If your point was more about an embryo being "genetically-encoded", than it was about "an incubator", then you are talking DNA. If you are enamored with DNA, then you could go to a barber shop and sweep the floor. There is lots of DNA there, and it keeps better than an embryo -- no freezing required.

 

Gee

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gees

[StringJunky]

StringJunky;

 

Please consider the following:

 

 

If you put a human embryo into something that will freeze and preserve it, it won't develop at all.

 

If you put a human embryo into a woman, it has a fair chance of developing into a human.

 

If you put a human embryo into an incubator and cook it, it will develop into waste.

 

 

You did not provide evidence to support your above assertion, and I doubt that you can.

 

If your point was more about an embryo being "genetically-encoded", than it was about "an incubator", then you are talking DNA. If you are enamored with DNA, then you could go to a barber shop and sweep the floor. There is lots of DNA there, and it keeps better than an embryo -- no freezing required.

 

Gee

I didn't realise you were being literal about the incubator. I envisaged some capable technology.

 

In an embryo everything is there to begin the development of a baby. The DNA is the instructions for a person. Yes, in hair-clippings the instructions are there but nothing else that is necessary.

[CharonY]

The embryo is whatever it is genetically-encoded to be. If you put that embryo "...in an incubator and cook it for nine months". it will be a human baby.

 

That in isolation is actually a tricky statement. Embryonic development does require feedback and input from a suitable environment to guide the gestation. This true for other tissues, too. I.e. development always has to take the environment into account. Theoretically you could envision an artificial system that takes care of that, but it still means that the developing organisms still requires cues from its environment, i.e. it is not self-contained in that context.

 

It is also tricky to tie it down to DNA, as again, without the proper cellular content, the DNA does nothing. That is why we are not able to crate artificial cells, just inject DNA into existing ones.

I think this may be another of those points were our desire of having clear boundaries clashes with the realities of biology.

Edited May 21, 2015 by CharonY

[3blake7]

I think we should just pick a point, dependent is not a very good line because even a 1 year old infant is dependent on it's mother but killing a 1 year old infant is considered murder. You could say that it is life when the gestation has reached the point where there are neurons and some form of consciousness, albeit limited consciousness, below the average mammal. You could say it's life the moment it's possible that there is unique DNA, such as the fertilization of the egg by a sperm cell. It's really a philosophical question of what and when we consider an embryo or fertilized egg to be a human being, a citizen with rights, that the government must protect. We aren't logically consistent with all life. We have different rights for animals than we do human beings so the precedent seems to be human level consciousness gives us those rights but considering we extend those rights to infants it seems the philosophy is more, the potential of human level consciousness. The embryo and fertilized egg has the potential for human level consciousness. If we can make pro-lifers and pro-choicers happy at the same time, shouldn't we? If we can give the women the right to her body, the right to abort an unborn human being while simultaneously protecting the life of the unborn human being, shouldn't we? Shouldn't we strive to be more logically consistent, especially when technology opens up a new option to us? We can simply change the abortion procedure to preserve the blastocyst, cryogenically freeze it and maybe one day it will be born. Some claim that the procedure has a 90% success rate but that could be improved upon with more demand. The cost of cryogenic storage would also go down with more demand, liquid nitrogen isn't very expensive.

 

We can also look at other contexts, such as the rights we extend animals, which do not have the potential of human level consciousness. We still protect them from cruelty, such as the Florida man who ran over a mother duck and her ducklings with a lawn mower. The philosophy behind this seems to be to prevent unnecessary killings. We then turn around and have duck hunting seasons but as omnivores we hunt and consume ducks as a matter of our primal natures. If we take the apparent philosophy of protecting the rights of anything with the potential of human level consciousness and preventing unnecessary killing, then the synthesis of pro-life and pro-choice, the safe removal of blastocysts and cryogenic storage is truly the best fit philosophy.

Edited May 22, 2015 by 3blake7

[MonDie]

Do anti-abortion laws actually achieve the desired ends?

If they don't, do legal pro-lifers truly care about the embryos?

If they don't, how will this help?

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

 

 

That's it. I'm done.

[Gees]

CharonY;

 

Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this topic. Please consider my following thoughts.

 

 

That in isolation is actually a tricky statement. Embryonic development does require feedback and input from a suitable environment to guide the gestation. This true for other tissues, too. I.e. development always has to take the environment into account. Theoretically you could envision an artificial system that takes care of that, but it still means that the developing organisms still requires cues from its environment, i.e. it is not self-contained in that context.

 

It is also tricky to tie it down to DNA, as again, without the proper cellular content, the DNA does nothing. That is why we are not able to crate artificial cells, just inject DNA into existing ones.

I think this may be another of those points were our desire of having clear boundaries clashes with the realities of biology.

 

Although you are a well-educated scientist, and I am just a natural philosopher, our thoughts in this matter seem to align. We have come to our conclusions using entirely different paths, as my considerations are the result of years of studying consciousness. Please note that I am not referring to neurology's definition of consciousness which is more the study of brain states, but am talking about philosophy's definition of consciousness that could be described as sentience or simple awareness.

 

When you use words like, "does require feedback" and "cues from its environment", I interpret that as meaning the embryo is sentient and aware -- or that it is conscious of its environment. On the other hand, every live cell in every body of every specie is also sentient and aware, so I find it difficult to find a difference between embryonic cells, muscle cells, and skin cells, except for the potential difference. If we start talking about potential, then that takes us back to the idea that every seed is precious. Is an acorn an oak tree? Is an embryo a human? I don't think so.

 

Regarding your statement that "Theoretically you could envision an artificial system"; I doubt this. One could hypothesize, but there is little evidence to support a theory. My studies indicate that an artificial system would be as good at promoting new life as Daniel Dennett's computers are good at being conscious -- which is not very likely.

 

Again, thank you for your input. I am happy to have met you as I have had some questions about endospores for some years now. Maybe I can get some answers if I start a thread in the appropriate forum.

 

Gee