Is there no objective ethic here?

Like what? Burn the tissue or bury it? What is your opinion? What should be done with aborted fetuses?

Knowing you'll dodge, let's pretend it's absolutely illegal to have an abortion. Those mothers who illegally have an abortion must decide what to do with the fetus. What is your suggestion?

Interbane wrote:

Is there no objective ethic here?

Like what? Burn the tissue or bury it? What is your opinion? What should be done with aborted fetuses?

Knowing you'll dodge, let's pretend it's absolutely illegal to have an abortion. Those mothers who illegally have an abortion must decide what to do with the fetus. What is your suggestion?

I've said before that it is and always will be a woman's choice. It is what it is.
My opinion was based specifically re late term abortions and the harvesting of tissue for "scientific reasons"

You have no ethics in these matters simply because you believe Mankind can and SHOULD do whatever s/he wishes.
Yours, in my opinion, is a lack of reverence for life (and potential life, for that matter), except in cases where you personally bestow significance. You have become a God.

You bestow great significance to you children's lives.
A cannibal would likely eat them with no regard for your bestowing of value to your gene carriers.
His gene survival would increase. Yours would decrease.
And you should have, at the most reducible state, no problem with this.
I certainly don't if I share your worldview.

That is your existence in a nutshell, Interbane. You actually do not need Christian beliefs that Mankind is divine because you've replaced that "false belief" with speciesm. But you're just as "delusional" when speaking from an evolutionary perspective.

Now, you havn't answered a more interesting question; Air conditioners are significant contributors to Global Warming.
Are you turning yours off this summer?

Why is a newborn baby a person, but not a fetus? I don't think we have very good criteria to make that distinction. If anything the science seems to come down on the pro-life side. A fetus at eight weeks already has a heartbeat. Doesn't that indicate a viable life form?

I've never been very convinced by the pro-choice argument. But I also recognize that this is morally ambiguous question and that neither side is completely right or wrong.
If you've read Haidt's Moral Foundations theory, you could easily argue that conservatives have a broader moral sense than liberals. In fact, Haidt, a liberal, argues just that. This article doesn't talk about abortion, but when it comes to that issue, conservatives just might be closer to the truth than liberals.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all

With homo sapiens, women have a much greater burden of child-bearing than men do and that's the reality of it. It's a biological fact. Trying to equalize a mother's burden by giving her the right to choose comes at the expense of an innocent fetus. It's an arbitrary method of trying to equalize gender roles that are, to some degree, dictated by biology. It seems to me that a fetus has every right to be protected as a newborn baby. Trying to draw a distinction at eight weeks or eight months is always arbitrary. Indeed, in many states, a mother can be charged for drinking or using drugs while pregnant. But it's okay to kill the fetus? Abortion as a right simply makes no sense.

Why is a newborn baby a person, but not a fetus?

I don't recall stating a fetus did not have any degree of personhood, Nor do I recall statiing a fetus is void of intrinsic value.
Are you saying I did? Show me where.
What I did mention was late term abortions.

With homo sapiens, women have a much greater burden of child-bearing than men do and that's the reality of it. It's a biological fact. Trying to equalize a mother's burden by giving her the right to choose comes at the expense of an innocent fetus. It's an arbitrary method of trying to equalize gender roles that are, to some degree, dictated by biology. It seems to me that a fetus has every right to be protected as a newborn baby. Trying to draw a distinction at eight weeks or eight months is always arbitrary. Indeed, in many states, a mother can be charged for drinking or using drugs while pregnant. But it's okay to kill the fetus? Abortion as a right simply makes no sense.

Not sure, but I think this is preaching to the choir.
I can appreciate what you've said here.

ant wrote:I don't recall stating a fetus did not have any degree of personhood, Nor do I recall statiing a fetus is void of intrinsic value.
Are you saying I did?

Nah, I'm sort of just randomly weighing in on the abortion question. I realize it's not very relevant to the conversation. By all means carry on. I'm sort of an outlier these days.

You have no ethics in these matters simply because you believe Mankind can and SHOULD do whatever s/he wishes.

But ant, I do have ethics, and I've stated them. I do think life is sacred. I agree with you that it is the woman's choice. But I have a different opinion regarding what to do with dead bodies.

Is this wrong? I personally want my own body to not be buried in a graveyard and take up more real estate. Nor do I want it burned for that last little touch of carbon footprint. I want, and truly believe it's the right decision, for my body to be used in some manner to help other people live better lives. I have no reverence for death, only life. When I am dead, use my body for those who are alive. Chop me up and test my parts, or donate my organs.

This is what I honestly believe is right. You disagree, but why?

If I think it's right for myself, I obviously think it's right for others. But regarding the harvesting of fetal tissue for science, there's something that "feels" wrong about it. I do feel what you're saying. I would rather they not do this. But I get the same revulsion thinking of them throwing the body away, or burying it, or burning it. Basically, any handling of the fetus at all. So I question my own feelings here. For that reason, I don't think we should stop scientists from using the tissue to find new ways to improve the wellbeing of those who are still alive. But it should be done with dignity, humanely, and without causing any pain.

You can strawman my point of view as many different ways as you want to try and elicit emotion. But I don't think I'm wrong here.

And for the record, I don't own an AC unit. I suffer miserably in the summers here in central CA.

A cannibal would likely eat them with no regard for your bestowing of value to your gene carriers.
His gene survival would increase. Yours would decrease.
And you should have, at the most reducible state, no problem with this.
I certainly don't if I share your worldview.

There's no better proof than this that you have no idea what my worldview is. I would have no problem with someone eating my kids? I'm not sure what to say. What do you think I believe, that this sort of thing would be ok?

Interbane wrote: When I am dead, use my body for those who are alive. Chop me up and test my parts, or donate my organs.

This is what I honestly believe is right. You disagree, but why?

If I think it's right for myself, I obviously think it's right for others. But regarding the harvesting of fetal tissue for science, there's something that "feels" wrong about it. I do feel what you're saying. I would rather they not do this. But I get the same revulsion thinking of them throwing the body away, or burying it, or burning it. Basically, any handling of the fetus at all. So I question my own feelings here. For that reason, I don't think we should stop scientists from using the tissue to find new ways to improve the wellbeing of those who are still alive. But it should be done with dignity, humanely, and without causing any pain.

The key difference Interbane is that this a choice you can make whereas for the unborn child they are given no choice.
It's all well and good to talk about a woman's choice but things are rarely the same in reality as in theory.

In the U.K. mental health grounds are allowed, and 95% of abortions are granted on this grounds. And yet how valid is this really and what do studies indicate here?

Everyone knows it's de-facto abortion on demand with a box ticking legal ritual.

More sinister is what's emerging in the U.S.where vulnerable young pregnant women appear to be leaned on to make the decision for abortion and consent to give the fetus for scientific research.

Despite denials of a financial motive there is a commercial reality here and I don't think those who are speaking from real experience are lying for the fun of it.

Here's a recent example of a former Planned Parenthood technician,Holly O' Donnell describing her experience of these things.
It's chilling really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABzFZM73o8M

There's no better proof than this that you have no idea what my worldview is. I would have no problem with someone eating my kids? I'm not sure what to say. What do you think I believe, that this sort of thing would be ok?

You're missing my point, deliberately evading it, or deceiving your self (and perhaps others) into thinking that I think you'd be okay with cannibals eating your family.
Of COURSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I BELIEVE YOUR EMOTIONAL REACTION WOULD BE.

I'd be appalled as well.

But there's no escaping the root of your reductionist philosophy - the meaning your offspring has beyond blind nature is entirely contextual and subjective. There is no objective grounding to it because the universe is purposeless.

Your hope and promise that your offspring would be beneficial to the survival of our species means nothing beyond your subjectivity. It's not a brute fact of any kind.

It amazes me how Naturalism does not realize they've placed themselves back in the center of a universe they try to argue is also purposeless.
Simply amazing.

Flann 5 wrote: The key difference Interbane is that this a choice you can make whereas for the unborn child they are given no choice.
It's all well and good to talk about a woman's choice but things are rarely the same in reality as in theory.

In the U.K. mental health grounds are allowed, and 95% of abortions are granted on this grounds. And yet how valid is this really and what do studies indicate here?

Everyone knows it's de-facto abortion on demand with a box ticking legal ritual.

More sinister is what's emerging in the U.S.where vulnerable young pregnant women appear to be leaned on to make the decision for abortion and consent to give the fetus for scientific research.

Despite denials of a financial motive there is a commercial reality here and I don't think those who are speaking from real experience are lying for the fun of it.

Here's a recent example of a former Planned Parenthood technician,Holly O' Donnell describing her experience of these things.
It's chilling really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABzFZM73o8M

Forgive my intrusion, but I don't think women are having abortions for the purpose of selling the remains. Nor is Planned Parenthood encouraging women to have abortions in order to obtain the remains. I think the decision to have an abortion is separate from what to do with the fetal tissue afterwards. Granted, the casual disregard for human life is appalling, but the narrative that is being put forth by the anti-abortion activists seems to suggest that mothers are being herded into clinics in order to obtain fetal tissue and this is patently false. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

If we accept that some women have decided to have an abortion, the decision about what to do with the fetal tissue seems a separate question. In that respect, I don't think it's necessarily bad to donate the tissue for the purposes of study, although if there's a profit motive, we go into questionable territory.

geo wrote:Forgive my intrusion, but I don't think women are having abortions for the purpose of selling the remains. Nor is Planned Parenthood encouraging women to have abortions in order to obtain the remains. I think the decision to have an abortion is separate from what to do with the fetal tissue afterwards.

You're right Geo,they are not having abortions for the purpose of selling the body parts. They get nothing and sign to agree to this.
The sale for profit of fetuses is rightly illegal. Nonetheless the sale for expenses involved seems to be allowed and this could be open to abuse.
Whether Holly O' Donnell's account is anecdotal or symptomatic of a pervasive culture is what may be at issue. Her account of a woman uncertain about whether to go ahead with the abortion or not and unhappy about giving consent for the use of the fetus for research also, is a case in point.
Her boss's alleged response and taking her to task for actually respecting the woman's uncertainty and feelings is certainly unethical.It was "a missed opportunity" was the complaint.
There are other former P.P. employees who tell similar stories about the procedures and practices they witnessed and took part in.
It's grim stuff and from what I've seen I think there is a pervasive culture there weighted in favour of choosing abortion and giving consent for the use of fetuses for scientific research.
This is dismissed as skewed editing but there is hours of continuous video out there and I think that's hard to sustain.
I haven't looked at all this and some elements show the interviewers encouraging them to ask for more than they might otherwise.
I guess this will end up in the courts where video and documentary evidence will be examined closely.
Certainly the cold demeanour of some in an area as sensitive as this is not confidence inspiring.