Re: [American_Liberty] Re: Pregnancy, IVF and the RIGHTS of Sperm.Blastocyts and Embryos and HUMAN BEINGS
- --- somena2001 <meaghan_walker@...> wrote:
> --- In American_Liberty@y..., "John T. Kennedy" <john_t_kennedy@y...>That's right. Never, to the best of my knowledge; and I have no reasonable
> > >
> > > Have you Stopped Killing your Children John?
> > No, I never started.
> Never had sex with a woman on the Pill -
> Deprovra, or IUD?
doubts on this matter whatsoever. How far do you want to take this line of
Even if I had, it could only reflect upon me and not the merit of my argument.
But thrash onward if if it makes you feel better.
John T. Kennedy
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
- --- In American_Liberty@y..., Michael Doughty <mozart@r...> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, sfkochanski wrote:
> > I must assume your view of an IVF clinic is a particularly dim
> > since they are killing people not just one at a time like anabortion
> > clinic but by the dozens.to
> Particularly dim because I believe they are being killed similarly
> Yes -- I do believe they are being wrongly killed. Yes -- I do
> they have rights. No -- I don't believe it is "right" to treatthem as
> laboratory animals.They are not being treated as laboratory animals. They are being
used for the same purpose that embryos have always been used since
humanity existed- to try and continue the species.
> > > A cell which constitutes a clone of a human being is a zygote,and
> > will inthe
> > > time reach the developmental stage of "embryo".
> > So in other words, an actual human being waves a magic wand over
> > cell and says "We are going to make you a human being through-the magic wand is waived-
> > cloning, little cell, so- poof!- you already are. Here's your
> > voter's registration."
> Not exactly. Once the clone is initiated,
> he becomes self-replicating --the
> self-developing. He is, at that point, his own human being. Until
> point that the cell is able to do this, it is not a human being.At which
> point when it can, he IS, by the very definition of what a humanbeing is
> in scientific terms. His rational faculty is his,An embryo, or a cell, has no rational faculty, by the very definition
of what a rational faculty IS. The basic hardware that enables
a 'rational faculty' won't develop for many months yet.
> by his nature, just asTables A, B and C each have an apple on them. Table D does not. Is
> your rational faculty is yours, by your nature.
it the nature of tables to have apples on them?
> > > He is being prevented from self-organizing.left to
> > How so? This embryo has never seen the inside of a womb. It was
> > created in a petri dish and immediately transported to a freezer.
> > Without human intervention it will *never self-organize*. If
> > its own devices it will degrade into nothingness, not turn into aof
> > child.
> If I were born in outer space, would that make me a different kind
> organism?Yes, it certainly might- the conditions in outer space are unusual
enough that an evolutionary shift could occur (homo sapiens
kosmos?). It will be an interesting process to observe, once
humanity starts living entire life cycles in space. But this has
nothing to do with this debate.
> If I were then frozen in a huge cube of ice, would I fail tothe
> be a human being? I fail to see how whether the embryo having seen
> inside of a womb, or having been frozen, is a determining factor towhat
> the embryo *is*.One thing at least I know makes you sleep better at night, Michael-
you have never been bothered by that pesky 'Which came first, the
chicken or the egg?' quandary. To you, the egg is the chicken.
> > Again, by your logic, the entire IVF industry is one of
> > institutionalized slaughter of innocents.
> I didn't make that judgement. I simply judged what I see in
> that is, what is the embryo. Is he a human being or not? Heclearly is.
> Is he a "person with rights", which is a philosophical rather thandenying any
> scientific question. I see no valid philosophical reason for
> human being to be part of that category of "persons with rights."spade the
> Now obviously that might make "the entire IVF industry one of
> institutionalized slaughter of innocents", but I am calling the
> spade and then judging that situation based on that criteria.Would you
> rather me judge the situation emotionally, by saying "since I don'twant
> to judge the IVF industry so harshly, I am going to lower mystandards in
> recognizing reality for what it is."? Isn't that putting the cartbefore
> the horse?First off- humanity is not emotionless. There is nothing wrong with
an emotional judgement, provided you recognize it as such. You, for
instance, say you have not judged the situation emotionally, and yet
in your last post tossed around such emotionally-charged words and
phrases as 'sociopath' (a clearly inaccurate usage). You also agreed
that you were 'shocked and appalled' by the IVF industry- that is not
an emotional judgement?
Now then- Some people might reach a surprising conclusion ('The IVF
industry has killed as many people as Stalin') and pause for a
moment, re-check their work, then try to discover which assumption
produced such a marvelous result, and *perhaps* change their
assumptions. Or they might conclude that their assumptions are
valid, and incorporate a new conclusion into their world view. That
is not putting the cart before the horse at all. That's how the
process is supposed to work.
I can only assume you have gone through this feedback loop on this
> I can see the implications now -- "I don't want to admit thatHitler was a
> mass-murderer, so I'll lower my standards and declare that he musthave
> been right about the Jews after all."I avoid using Hitler and the Nazis in any debate that does not
involve them directly- it's too emotionally charged.
> > Surely by now the deathWhy must I be trying to justify anything? I pointed out a logical
> > count, from failed attempts and discarded waste, must rival what
> > Stalin did to the Ukraine, if not all of Russia.
> Your point?
> Who are you trying to justify? Stalin, or the IVF industry?
conclusion to your position, and you agreed with that conclusion.
The fact that I find that conclusion monstrous is neither here nor
> > I hope my contempt for this viewpoint has come through clearlyMy goal, in this particular exchange, was to point out conclusions
> > enough, Michael.
> I thought your goal was to make a reasonable argument, not to show
> contempt. You emotional types are such cards.
that I thought ludicrous and monstrous. You disagreed, and said you
did not find the conclusions ludicrous or monstrous at all. That
would seem to bring us to an impasse.
Halftime, change ends- my position is that humanity is not defined
simply by their DNA. I believe that humanity must possess the
capacity- not simply the potential- for rational thought and choice,
which I consider made up of three systems- the sense organs (for
receiving signals), the nervous system (for transmitting those
signals) and the brain (for interpreting those signals). Until those
develop over the course of gestation, a fetus is not a human being,
any more than a sacrifice is a way to see the sacred.
'You emotional types'? Are you still denying your essential nature,