tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post901892419765231208..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Time lapse imaging of embryos – exciting breakthrough or just eugenics by another name?Peter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-25504703298156214232015-03-10T15:51:06.519-07:002015-03-10T15:51:06.519-07:00Do you know anything at all about trisomies? Havi...Do you know anything at all about trisomies? Having three copies of 21 leads to Down syndrome, and a person with Down syndrome people can have a good life. Babies with three copies of 13 or 18 die a matter of days or weeks after birth and have severe mental and physical problems. Fetuses with other chromosome trisomies spontaneously abort, usually around week 10. So, in most cases, we're not talking about embryos that are going to become people. We're talking about keeping women from the heartache of not becoming pregnant or from losing a pregnancy. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-50112727728519058442013-05-19T21:30:02.530-07:002013-05-19T21:30:02.530-07:00OK, let's say you can save a convicted murdere...OK, let's say you can save a convicted murderer or a social worker who works at homeless shelters every weekend?<br /><br />If discriminating in one situation is acceptable, why is discrimination in the other situation not acceptable?Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-62349932071442551082013-05-19T15:40:03.269-07:002013-05-19T15:40:03.269-07:00I fear, Winston, that you are in denial. By your o...I fear, Winston, that you are in denial. By your own admission, you believe some individuals have more right to life than others. By your own admission, you would prefer the sighted to the blind. The classes of people you would favour are those YOU deem to be most worthy of survival. I didn't ask you how you would judge those who have mental disability, but (since you seem keen for me to draw inferences about your unstated opinions)I would infer that you would deem them also to be less worthy of survival. This aligns very closely with the views of eugenicists. I think you need to face up to the implications of your belief system and stop pretending that it is as innocent as you would like to believeCapper55https://www.blogger.com/profile/11655327614986086940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-77194146485583881362013-05-19T14:57:14.308-07:002013-05-19T14:57:14.308-07:00My apologies. I should have worded my post more ca...My apologies. I should have worded my post more carefully.<br /><br />It's been going on for centuries, if not acknowledged. As for eugenics, well, if we can prevent abnormalities like Harlequin Fetuses and full-blown Cystic Fybrosis, it would be a net benefit to everyone.<br /><br />It is not anything near the final solution (unless parents refusing medical care for their children is also analogous to the final solution).Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-2006744233725062522013-05-19T10:26:17.815-07:002013-05-19T10:26:17.815-07:00Nothing you have said contradicts my point that et...Nothing you have said contradicts my point that ethical triage prioritises on need not some arbitrary attribution of value. (Incidentally, I am intrigued as to how doctors can "frequently" euthanise infants but it then only happens rarely?) It all comes down to your position which is that some people are of more value than others (and therefore more worthy of life). In holding that position, you share common ground with eugenicists and the proponents of the final solution. You may disagree with them about which people are worthy of life but your position is no less arbitrary than theirs.Capper55https://www.blogger.com/profile/11655327614986086940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-49606920412081839852013-05-19T03:45:41.911-07:002013-05-19T03:45:41.911-07:00Triage also accepts the human inability to save ev...Triage also accepts the human inability to save everyone. It is also not an all-or-nothing scenario where some are guaranteed to die. Doctors frequently euthanise infants now. It's rare, but it does happen. It has an unintended benefit - organs from euthanised infants are more readily transplantable.<br /><br />You also ignored an implicit assumption in my moral dilemma, which is thus: both infants are equidistant.Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-19182970161372693782013-05-19T01:43:35.350-07:002013-05-19T01:43:35.350-07:00My point is that your position is based on the val...My point is that your position is based on the value you attribute to individuals. Evidently you consider a blind child to be less valuable than a sighted one. But triage is based on need, not perceived value. Would you prioritise a sighted child's grazed knee above a blind child's broken leg? The claim that some humans have greater value than others leads to a very dangerous, slippery slope at the bottom of which is eugenics. BTW I would save the one I could get to firstCapper55https://www.blogger.com/profile/11655327614986086940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-30392180883929231152013-05-18T19:45:58.708-07:002013-05-18T19:45:58.708-07:00I would save the sighted one. What's your poin...I would save the sighted one. What's your point? It's a far cry from infanticide, which Peter Singer advocates.<br /><br />Would you decide by tossing a coin?Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-41123515914986333092013-05-18T16:37:17.405-07:002013-05-18T16:37:17.405-07:00So your judgement is based purely on their physica...So your judgement is based purely on their physical condition. What if it was a question of a blind infant and a sighted one?<br />Capper55https://www.blogger.com/profile/11655327614986086940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-69457234510279536592013-05-18T16:23:28.796-07:002013-05-18T16:23:28.796-07:00If they're infants, and I couldn't save th...If they're infants, and I couldn't save them both, I would also save the one without spina bifida. Like you said, they're equally worthy of saving, so how could you fault me either way?Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-67233143413233374982013-05-18T16:08:06.439-07:002013-05-18T16:08:06.439-07:00and if they're infants?and if they're infants?<br />Capper55https://www.blogger.com/profile/11655327614986086940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-65806943827897981632013-05-18T16:02:34.668-07:002013-05-18T16:02:34.668-07:00If they're embryos, then I would save the one ...If they're embryos, then I would save the one without spina bifida. If they're equally valuable, according to you, then there is no moral difference between saving one or the other.Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-25148822380854796572013-05-18T15:53:15.697-07:002013-05-18T15:53:15.697-07:00Winston, you are being more than a little disingen...Winston, you are being more than a little disingenuous in the way you pose your question. The issue raised by Peter is not a question of which person should be saved, but which should be killed. The real choice would be (to re-phrase your question) should you save a petri dish with "healthy" embryos or one with embryos which suffer from (say) spina bifida. So then (to apply your question), in the event of a fire, which would YOU choose to save? An infant with spina bifida or one which is deemed to be "normal"?Capper55https://www.blogger.com/profile/11655327614986086940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-89515893600259699862013-05-18T15:20:08.235-07:002013-05-18T15:20:08.235-07:00Hey, you attempted to dodge the constraints of the...Hey, you attempted to dodge the constraints of the moral dilemma.<br /><br />Moreover, the very idea of triage demolishes your notion of total and utter equality among all lives.Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-89884799675595536512013-05-18T15:12:53.339-07:002013-05-18T15:12:53.339-07:00Infer what you like but all human lives are equall...Infer what you like but all human lives are equally precious.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-8814051467824420992013-05-18T14:15:35.199-07:002013-05-18T14:15:35.199-07:00You dodged the core issue - you can't save bot...You dodged the core issue - you can't save both.<br /><br />By your evasion, I'll simply conclude that you would prefer to save the embryos.Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-29285523616758967802013-05-18T13:36:30.419-07:002013-05-18T13:36:30.419-07:00"Is it possible to be a human being but not a..."Is it possible to be a human being but not a person?"<br /><br />There is a strict scientific approach to this question, as follows: It is up to any who wish to answer "yes" to the question, to provide an operational definition of the word "person" as they are using it. An operational definition is an observation, measurement or experiment which is capable of distinguishing between a human who is a "person" (as the proponent of the "person" hypothesis intends the word to be understood) and a human who is not a "person" (as they intend the word to be understood).<br /><br />To offer any answer to the question that isn't rooted in science, is, I have argued in a post on my own blog which is too long to paste here, simply to engage in "mumbo-jumbo". The post is entitled "The mumbo-jumbo of choice", because the argument is applied to abortion, and those in favour of non-criminal elective abortion other than in extremis, like to refer to themselves as "pro-choice". However, the argument works just as well in the present context, in which the ethical considerations are not dissimilar.<br /><br />It is ultimately a pointless question that is being posed. Modern jurisprudence worldwide exalts *human* rights. It is largely silent on the subject of "personal rights". No human right may be denied to a human because he or she is not a "person" (according to this or that definition). Nor are there any additional "personal" rights that belong only to humans who are also considered to be "persons".<br /><br />Pro-choice people have to resort to metaphysics or (as I call it) "mumbo-jumbo". Typically they deploy circular arguments. I imagine that that is all that Messrs Glover, Singer and Harris are doing. The more verbose their polemics, the harder it is to spot the hidden mumbo-jumbo, but appeals to a fictional ensoulment event (or enpersonment) that cannot be observed by a scientist, are bound to be lurking in there somewhere.<br /><br />"Enpersonment" is an interesting word to Google. "How does one observe, measure or detect enpersonment?" is the killer question, when questioning would-be killers. It exposes that their position depends upon something other than science, something fictitious that they have simple made up, to get the answer they want, and which is the answer they want in disguise, the hallmark of a circular of argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-79392794864570749152013-05-18T11:51:23.774-07:002013-05-18T11:51:23.774-07:00I'd grab the petri dish in my left hand and th...I'd grab the petri dish in my left hand and the newborn baby in my right and make for the door :-)<br />Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-40905388720999464972013-05-18T03:41:53.057-07:002013-05-18T03:41:53.057-07:00Would you sacrifice yourself to save an embryo?
O...Would you sacrifice yourself to save an embryo?<br /><br />Or say a hospital is burning down. To your left is a petri dish with several viable embryos that have yet to be implanted. To your right ins a newborn baby. You can only save one.<br /><br />Which do you save?Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-56529548913730310602013-05-18T01:26:28.331-07:002013-05-18T01:26:28.331-07:00It's clear you take the Glover/Singer/Harris v...It's clear you take the Glover/Singer/Harris view of human worth.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-75202302603576102162013-05-18T00:05:32.466-07:002013-05-18T00:05:32.466-07:00And why should embryos have the rights of born hum...And why should embryos have the rights of born human babies?<br /><br />If you want to see an end to abortion, why haven't you lobbied for artificial womb technology yet?Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-70847657427320447472013-05-17T22:22:24.029-07:002013-05-17T22:22:24.029-07:00This technology is being used to select out and de...This technology is being used to select out and destroy human embryos judged unworthy of life on genetic grounds.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-54972579776553741202013-05-17T17:34:25.146-07:002013-05-17T17:34:25.146-07:00Every technology has two sides to it. The wielder ...Every technology has two sides to it. The wielder determines the consequence.<br /><br />Why do you hold technology relating to cloning and embryology to be particularly dangerous to civilisation?Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-3922643814015213562013-05-17T15:01:34.717-07:002013-05-17T15:01:34.717-07:00Do you think every conceivable use of every techno...Do you think every conceivable use of every technology is ethical?Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-47599117162095731952013-05-17T14:45:51.202-07:002013-05-17T14:45:51.202-07:00Bloody hell, Peter. Do you see any scientific disc...Bloody hell, Peter. Do you see any scientific discovery as beneficial? Any at all?Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.com