• In total there are 36 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 36 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

Flann wrote:The right to life of the unborn baby can be overridden by the choice of the pregnant mother with no justification beyond this required.
Is it not the mother's choice?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
The right to life of the unborn baby can be overridden by the choice of the pregnant mother with no justification beyond this required.




Is it not the mother's choice?
The values of a society can be measured by how those most vulnerable are treated. Who could be more vulnerable or helpless?
Unwanted babies can be adopted so there are options other than terminating human life.
So no it's not, if it means the ending of another human life.
It's phrased as a woman's right over her own body, but a fetus is not just part of her body but another life in her body.
I take exception to Pinker's blase talk about consent and protections when this is precisely what is denied to vulnerable unborn babies.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

Unwanted babies can be adopted so there are options other than terminating human life.
Great point, Flann.

Is there a Humanist movement for that line of reasoning?
Seems very humane to me.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

ant wrote:I'm not talking about embryos. I mentioned late term abortions.
Should those late term abortions be treated with dignity regardless of their lack of conscious life, or are their body tissues up for grabs?

Let's hear all our humanists chime in here.
I'm sure what a humanist actually is and I'm not sure it's necessary to label people as such.

I'm not aware of any scientific research using late term fetuses. In any event, late term abortions are rare and are totally unrelated to Pinker's article. Most embryonic stem cells used for research are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro and then donated for research.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/pages/basics3.aspx

I'm not sure what you mean by "up for grabs" but if a pregnancy is aborted and the parent decides to donate the tissue for research, how is that different from a married partner donating her dead spouse's remains to a university for research? It must be emotionally gutting to be in a position where abortion has to be considered. I can't even imagine being in such a scenario. But is this a morally absolute position where the baby always takes precedence over the mother? At what day does a fetus become a human being? Do we ignore issues as the mother's mental capacity or genetic disorders or the fact that she will be ostracized and have to live in her car or doesn't even have a car? Is there a one-size-fits-all answer to htis very complex problem.

I hear you, Flann, that the mother can always put the baby up for adoption. But I suspect even this isn't always straightforward.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:Stephen Pinker blithely assures us,quote; "Of course individuals must be protected from identifiable harm,but we already have ample safeguards for the safety and informed consent of patients and research subjects."

Just who is asking the consent of unborn babies about whether their body parts can be used in scientific research?
These are moral judgements and for Pinker it's a utilitarian numbers game.

Why not just take Pinker's body parts and give them for scientific research or transplant? After all why let nebulous principles like dignity,sacredness and social justice get in the way of the greater benefit of a greater number?
Except for the one example, Pinker isn't very specific about the biomedical research he is promoting. Yes, would he be talking about things such as the harvesting and sale of baby body parts ? Would he be talking about animal experimentation also? If so, human happiness, if it would result from these things, isn't ethically achieved.

In general, I'm not impressed with utilitarian justifications based on the greatest happiness for the greatest number. We can't agree on what happiness is, or how far we should ethically go to achieve it. Sometimes our happiness comes at the expense of other parts of the ecosystem, and these, arguably, have rights to exist just as we do. It might also be true that curing disease doesn't make us so much happier in the long run, if we have to die anyway. And extending life far beyond its current span might not do it, either. Maybe Thomas Jefferson played us a trick with the pursuit of happiness.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

I think a new malaria vaccine is a better example of what Pinker is discussing. It's the first one targeting a parasite. In early trials it was so effective they took some shortcuts to accelerate development such as administering it to all participants, but at different times after exposure instead of a control group that receives a placebo. Turns out the efficacy rate is only 25 - 36%, but it could still produce a major reduction in the spread of the disease. Should we stop and fret about whether the vaccine causes autism for say five years with 600K deaths per year or should we move forward?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

 
how is that different from a married partner donating her dead spouse's remains to a university for research?
I

Amazing. Simply amazing.
The ethics of some disbelievers:

Interbane didn't think there might be a 3rd choice - adoption, rather than life or its destruction.
If he did, it wasnt worth mentioning.

Geo sees no difference between donating a person's body - who actually experienced some personhood but becuase of illness or calamity could no longer experience it, and an aborted infant who never got a chance at personhood.

Very cool calculating ethics being expressed here by, who exactly, disbelievers? Humanists, Secularists?
Ethicists?

Meanwhile the God of the OT still tortures our world with a monsterous unsympathetic attitude . Lets remind all those illogical Christians theyre foolish for being Believers. They deserve that label.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

ant wrote: 
how is that different from a married partner donating her dead spouse's remains to a university for research?
I

Amazing. Simply amazing.
The ethics of some disbelievers:

Interbane didn't think there might be a 3rd choice - adoption, rather than life or its destruction.
If he did, it wasnt worth mentioning.

Geo sees no difference between donating a person's body - who actually experienced some personhood but becuase of illness or calamity could no longer experience it, and an aborted infant who never got a chance at personhood.

Very cool calculating ethics being expressed here by, who exactly, disbelievers? Humanists, Secularists?
Ethicists?

Meanwhile the God of the OT still tortures our world with a monsterous unsympathetic attitude . Lets remind all those illogical Christians theyre foolish for being Believers. They deserve that label.
I do see a difference, but I was thinking about a scenario in which a fetus has to be aborted for medical reasons. But no matter.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

ant wrote:Interbane didn't think there might be a 3rd choice - adoption, rather than life or its destruction.
If he did, it wasnt worth mentioning.
How about the fourth choice? Which one do we pick on the mother's behalf? Do we require her to pick one?

I think it should be required for anyone recently deceased to donate their body parts. I have that box checked on my license. When I'm done with my body, I'll be damned if they feed it to worms or burn it. Use it to save someone else's life, perhaps a young boy or newly married young man. Isn't the moral consequence of organ donation so positive, so powerful, that it should be required?

Reading between the lines, you know you won't stop abortion, but you speak out about how the aborted fetus is used. You want it thrown away. Throwing it away is better than using it to save lives. Something has to be done with it. Yes, it's disgusting and abhorrent, and I suspect that revulsion fuels the larger part of your moral outrage, rather than any reasoned response.

There is dignity and sanctity to an unborn fetus. But there is more dignity and sanctity to the mother. I do not have the right to speak on behalf of the fetus and overrule the mother. I could say her choice is immoral, but it is not my right to stop it, because it is her body. Although it doesn't have its own dignity and sanctity, a kidney is more similar to a fetus than a human. A pink mottled lump of flesh that may be living, but is dead if you remove it from the adult. Sure, we could require the woman to give birth and risk all the associated health complications. But is it our right to require that of another person?

I understand the anti-abortion position, but to me it smacks of misogyny. That others have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Yes, even other women are included in this group, and that makes it more disgusting, not less.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"

Unread post

Here is a related article from Nature mag

http://www.nature.com/news/bioethics-ac ... NatureNews
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”