Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Abortion - Genocide style

Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 3:48:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is aimed at the anti-abortionists out there.

Let's say I take a Petri dish of a million egg cells, and flooded it with sperms so we have roughly 1 million zygotes. Something quite accomplishable today/soon.

I let these cells divide perhaps 1 or 2 cycles before burning this Petri dish, killing all 1 million of these embryos.

1. Have I committed genocide?
2. Was this more immoral than murdering 1 conscious, intelligent child/young adult.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 4:21:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 3:48:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
This is aimed at the anti-abortionists out there.

Let's say I take a Petri dish of a million egg cells, and flooded it with sperms so we have roughly 1 million zygotes. Something quite accomplishable today/soon.

I let these cells divide perhaps 1 or 2 cycles before burning this Petri dish, killing all 1 million of these embryos.

1. Have I committed genocide?
2. Was this more immoral than murdering 1 conscious, intelligent child/young adult.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. It is also immoral to create human beings outside of the natural procreation process.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 4:22:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 4:21:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/24/2014 3:48:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
This is aimed at the anti-abortionists out there.

Let's say I take a Petri dish of a million egg cells, and flooded it with sperms so we have roughly 1 million zygotes. Something quite accomplishable today/soon.

I let these cells divide perhaps 1 or 2 cycles before burning this Petri dish, killing all 1 million of these embryos.

1. Have I committed genocide?
2. Was this more immoral than murdering 1 conscious, intelligent child/young adult.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. It is also immoral to create human beings outside of the natural procreation process.

How did you come to the conclusion of 3?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 4:32:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 4:22:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

How did you come to the conclusion of 3?

I'll just give you a brief version due to time constraints. Life is a gift and a product of the loving union of a man and woman. If you create life outside of this union you have abused the sexual process and made the claim that you have a right to a child; instead of parental guardianship of the child being a gift. If you have a right to a child then the child is essentially owned by the parents. If the child is owned by the parents then you have slavery.

Additionally in-vitro is done by fertilizing many cells and implanting some and freezing others. Thus you will end up killing children conceived by in-vitro (see points 1&2).
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 4:38:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, that would be genocide. More immoral/less immoral is subjective of course. More people would have a problem with you killing a walking talking human over one that is in the beginning stages of development. And it makes sense, since for hundreds of thousands of years humans haven't had to empathize with cells in a petri dish.

But we know what it is, so it changes nothing. The zygote is still a human whether it is further along in development or not.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 4:49:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 4:32:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/24/2014 4:22:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

How did you come to the conclusion of 3?

Life is a gift and a product of the loving union of a man and woman.

I don't see how you get to this conclusion, even with an understanding of your presuppositions (as far as my knowledge of the bible goes, I don't ever remember reading this), forgive me if your conclusion is not an extension of biblical teachings, tell me so.

If you create life outside of this union you have abused the sexual process

This is illogical, or maybe just badly worded. If the sexual process is not used, then how is it abused?

and made the claim that you have a right to a child; instead of parental guardianship of the child being a gift.

Doesn't every couple who has unprotected sex claim their right to a child if it's willfully done to conceive? Especially with our current scientific understanding of the processes involved. And why would life be any less of a gift if done in vitro? By your own presupposition, as far as I understand, God is the one who breathes life into organisms, therefore he could choose not to, unless you are about to accept the claim he has no choice.

If you have a right to a child then the child is essentially owned by the parents. If the child is owned by the parents then you have slavery.

I guess this stems from your gift/purchased dichotomy. But what if the parents did not purchase the child for sake of ownership, but instead for sake of the pleasure/joy of raising a free human being? Which I argue is the primary stance more IVF patients take
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 7:00:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 4:49:10 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I don't see how you get to this conclusion, even with an understanding of your presuppositions (as far as my knowledge of the bible goes, I don't ever remember reading this), forgive me if your conclusion is not an extension of biblical teachings, tell me so.

It is an extension of Natural Law.

This is illogical, or maybe just badly worded. If the sexual process is not used, then how is it abused?

Eggs and sperm must be harvested, artificially combined and reinserted as if a product of natural fertilization.

Doesn't every couple who has unprotected sex claim their right to a child if it's willfully done to conceive? Especially with our current scientific understanding of the processes involved. And why would life be any less of a gift if done in vitro? By your own presupposition, as far as I understand, God is the one who breathes life into organisms, therefore he could choose not to, unless you are about to accept the claim he has no choice.

As I noted parents are the natural guardians of the child. The guardianship of the child has been gifted them to rear unless they pass that guardianship off to someone else. In vitro forces creation instead of letting nature take its natural course. One can hope that a child results, however it is left to nature to determine whether a child will result or not. You do not have a right to a child.

I wasn't arguing this from a religious perspective. However, I would say that if you were arguing this from a religious standpoint, God has given us dominion over the earth and thus permits us to do acts against his will.

I guess this stems from your gift/purchased dichotomy. But what if the parents did not purchase the child for sake of ownership, but instead for sake of the pleasure/joy of raising a free human being? Which I argue is the primary stance more IVF patients take

I have no doubt that the parents are not desiring a slave, however the child has passed through the process of being a commodity (whether they paid for it or not) and as such has been reduced to being an object. Reducing any person to being merely an object is fundamentally wrong.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 7:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 7:00:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/24/2014 4:49:10 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I don't see how you get to this conclusion, even with an understanding of your presuppositions (as far as my knowledge of the bible goes, I don't ever remember reading this), forgive me if your conclusion is not an extension of biblical teachings, tell me so.

It is an extension of Natural Law.

Natural Law? The same law which allows for HIV, Polio, Measles, Human Predatiom etc?

This is illogical, or maybe just badly worded. If the sexual process is not used, then how is it abused?

Eggs and sperm must be harvested, artificially combined and reinserted as if a product of natural fertilization.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also abused is the wrong wrong word for this. 'Unused' is probably more accurate.

Doesn't every couple who has unprotected sex claim their right to a child if it's willfully done to conceive? Especially with our current scientific understanding of the processes involved. And why would life be any less of a gift if done in vitro? By your own presupposition, as far as I understand, God is the one who breathes life into organisms, therefore he could choose not to, unless you are about to accept the claim he has no choice.

As I noted parents are the natural guardians of the child. The guardianship of the child has been gifted them to rear unless they pass that guardianship off to someone else. In vitro forces creation instead of letting nature take its natural course. One can hope that a child results, however it is left to nature to determine whether a child will result or not. You do not have a right to a child.

Depends on your answer to 'natural law'.

I wasn't arguing this from a religious perspective. However, I would say that if you were arguing this from a religious standpoint, God has given us dominion over the earth and thus permits us to do acts against his will.

Forgive me, I went too far on my assumptions of your presuppositions.

I guess this stems from your gift/purchased dichotomy. But what if the parents did not purchase the child for sake of ownership, but instead for sake of the pleasure/joy of raising a free human being? Which I argue is the primary stance more IVF patients take

I have no doubt that the parents are not desiring a slave, however the child has passed through the process of being a commodity (whether they paid for it or not) and as such has been reduced to being an object. Reducing any person to being merely an object is fundamentally wrong.

Then how do you deal with all the grey-area cases then.

1. Deliberate sex during peak fertility
2. Regular, recurrant sex
3. Fertility enhancing drugs

Do these further objectify a person?

But it seems I have already pushed back your notion of slavery, which is good.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 8:15:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 7:16:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Natural Law? The same law which allows for HIV, Polio, Measles, Human Predatiom etc?

It is the means of reasoning based on remaining in keeping with our nature and what the true nature of actions are.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also abused is the wrong wrong word for this. 'Unused' is probably more accurate.

Possibly, but the sexual process (as I view it) is more than just the act it is also the entire means of reproducing the species.

Forgive me, I went too far on my assumptions of your presuppositions.

Hey no problem. If you want to argue it from a religious stand point I'm happy to do that as well. However, since this is the philosophy section I kept it as "philosophy."

Then how do you deal with all the grey-area cases then.

1. Deliberate sex during peak fertility

No problem with that. There is nothing wrong with desiring a child. It can also be permissible to avoid sex during the peak fertility period as a natural means of avoiding pregnancy. This is the basis for NFP which enables couples acting within natural law to enhance or decrease their odds of becoming pregnant.

2. Regular, recurrant sex

Hey, I'm all in favour of that! X-) Seriously though, so long as the couple is cognizant of the fact that the sexual process has two purposes, procreative and unitive, there is no problem with that.

3. Fertility enhancing drugs

Partially. Drugs that may result in pregnancies with large numbers of eggs being released at once should be avoided as they create conditions that would not be safe for the mother or the multiple children within her womb (because selective abortion to "winnow" the numbers is wrong). Otherwise it keeps the act rightly ordered, and so long as the couple are not using each other solely for procreation, it is acceptable.

Do these further objectify a person?

No, because it is not wrong to desire something and the procreation process (better?) remains intact.

But it seems I have already pushed back your notion of slavery, which is good.

I don't see that. I reaffirmed that the act of in vitro reduces a person to the state of being an object. If you are an object you have been degraded to the status of a slave. I thought the link I was making between the two was intuitively obvious.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 8:36:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:15:40 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/24/2014 7:16:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Natural Law? The same law which allows for HIV, Polio, Measles, Human Predatiom etc?

It is the means of reasoning based on remaining in keeping with our nature and what the true nature of actions are.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also abused is the wrong wrong word for this. 'Unused' is probably more accurate.

Possibly, but the sexual process (as I view it) is more than just the act it is also the entire means of reproducing the species.

Well I already highlighted the insufficiency of citing a natural process to be the only way pregnancy should occur. Your only objection seems to be on the grounds:

1. Naturally, it's a gift
2. Artificially it's not a gift

Of course, then, the obvious point of attack is to why the natural process should be regarded as gift given in the first place, given that essentially the same things happen in vitro, except for the location of where it happens.

Also gift implied personal gift-giver

We can also work backwards. Artificially surviving death, or preventing someone else's death (which is why I cited those natural diseases) should also be seen as immoral as the gift of life is objectified in a similar manner, and kept via non-natural law.

I don't see that. I reaffirmed that the act of in vitro reduces a person to the state of being an object. If you are an object you have been degraded to the status of a slave. I thought the link I was making between the two was intuitively obvious.

My objections to this are purely scientific ones. In that no living thing can be classified as an object, much less a conscious one. And obviously in vitro children are no less conscious than in vivo, and also have identical rights in society and law
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:17:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:36:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Aw, crud. My browser crashed and I lost my reply. I'll redo it later.

PS Thanks for volunteering to vote on the Shroud of Turin debate with Wylted.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 11:55:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. No.
2. No.

Killing "fetuses" aka "young children" the definition of "fetus" from Greek, is still murder you monster.

Typical atheist morality right here folks.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 12:44:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 11:55:51 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
1. No.
2. No.

Killing "fetuses" aka "young children" the definition of "fetus" from Greek, is still murder you monster.

Typical atheist morality right here folks.

The difference is,I don't rely on semantics to make my case
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 6:47:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 3:48:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
This is aimed at the anti-abortionists out there.

Let's say I take a Petri dish of a million egg cells, and flooded it with sperms so we have roughly 1 million zygotes. Something quite accomplishable today/soon.

I let these cells divide perhaps 1 or 2 cycles before burning this Petri dish, killing all 1 million of these embryos.

1. Have I committed genocide?
2. Was this more immoral than murdering 1 conscious, intelligent child/young adult.

Yes and yes. You've denied millions of individual human organisms of their future existence, which they have a right to. It's not up to us to decide whether or not their future is of value, or will be valued by them...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 6:50:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 3:48:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
This is aimed at the anti-abortionists out there.

Let's say I take a Petri dish of a million egg cells, and flooded it with sperms so we have roughly 1 million zygotes. Something quite accomplishable today/soon.

I let these cells divide perhaps 1 or 2 cycles before burning this Petri dish, killing all 1 million of these embryos.

1. Have I committed genocide?
2. Was this more immoral than murdering 1 conscious, intelligent child/young adult.

Why, have you done this?

There was something interesting lately... they took a frozen embryo and implanted it into a woman (I think she was lesbian) and it developed and she gave birth.

Imagine if they took an embryo that had been frozen for a hundred years, and implanted it in a person... then they would be older than their mother.

Literally all the people from their generation would be gone. Their real mothers and fathers would be long dead. It sounds like something from a science fiction movie... but I seriously bet it will be happening more often.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 6:51:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:15:40 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/24/2014 7:16:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Natural Law? The same law which allows for HIV, Polio, Measles, Human Predatiom etc?

It is the means of reasoning based on remaining in keeping with our nature and what the true nature of actions are.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also abused is the wrong wrong word for this. 'Unused' is probably more accurate.

Possibly, but the sexual process (as I view it) is more than just the act it is also the entire means of reproducing the species.

Forgive me, I went too far on my assumptions of your presuppositions.

Hey no problem. If you want to argue it from a religious stand point I'm happy to do that as well. However, since this is the philosophy section I kept it as "philosophy."

Then how do you deal with all the grey-area cases then.

1. Deliberate sex during peak fertility

No problem with that. There is nothing wrong with desiring a child. It can also be permissible to avoid sex during the peak fertility period as a natural means of avoiding pregnancy. This is the basis for NFP which enables couples acting within natural law to enhance or decrease their odds of becoming pregnant.

2. Regular, recurrant sex

Hey, I'm all in favour of that! X-)

Yesssssssssssssssss

Seriously though, so long as the couple is cognizant of the fact that the sexual process has two purposes, procreative and unitive, there is no problem with that.

3. Fertility enhancing drugs

Partially. Drugs that may result in pregnancies with large numbers of eggs being released at once should be avoided as they create conditions that would not be safe for the mother or the multiple children within her womb (because selective abortion to "winnow" the numbers is wrong). Otherwise it keeps the act rightly ordered, and so long as the couple are not using each other solely for procreation, it is acceptable.

Do these further objectify a person?

No, because it is not wrong to desire something and the procreation process (better?) remains intact.

But it seems I have already pushed back your notion of slavery, which is good.

I don't see that. I reaffirmed that the act of in vitro reduces a person to the state of being an object. If you are an object you have been degraded to the status of a slave. I thought the link I was making between the two was intuitively obvious.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 4:40:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 3:48:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
This is aimed at the anti-abortionists out there.

Let's say I take a Petri dish of a million egg cells, and flooded it with sperms so we have roughly 1 million zygotes. Something quite accomplishable today/soon.

I let these cells divide perhaps 1 or 2 cycles before burning this Petri dish, killing all 1 million of these embryos.

1. Have I committed genocide?
2. Was this more immoral than murdering 1 conscious, intelligent child/young adult.

If we accept the premise that killing a zygote is morally equivalent to killing a child........well this is where the logic takes you.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12