Santorum believes a pregnancy due to rape is a gift from God.

snafuk35

How might you ask could a believing Christian like Santorum actually say such a thing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/25/rick-santorum-rape-pregnancy

Rick Santorum's views on rape are actually biblically based despite his attempts to use secular law as justification (he's not fooling anybody). Deep down he believes that Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit.

So let's have a look at the passage where Mary supposedly 'agrees' to bear the infant Jesus:

26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Doesn't this classify as rape? I mean the poor girl was basically surprised by the angel and forced to submit to a celestial rape.
Do you really think she had a choice? Since it was foretold that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, then even before Mary's birth (she was specially selected to be without sin wasn't she?) she could not have had any choice but become the Mother of God.

Therefore God forced himself on Mary and God therefore is rapist.

This is why Santorum has these insane beliefs.

gawker

Not that I'd usually be one to agree with Santorum, but he was really saying life is a gift from god regardless of how it comes about from what I can see. He is not saying rape is a gift from god. Quite a big difference there in fairness. :rolleyes:

As for celestial rape, that would involve the virgin birth story being true

AtomicHorror

snafuk35 wrote: »

How might you ask could a believing Christian like Santorum actually say such a thing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/25/rick-santorum-rape-pregnancy

Rick Santorum's views on rape are actually biblically based despite his attempts to use secular law (he's not fooling anybody) because after all he believes that Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit.

So let's have a look at the passage where Mary supposedly 'agrees' to bear the infant Jesus:


Doesn't this classify as rape? I mean the poor girl was basically surprised by the angel and forced to submit to a celestial rape.
Do you really think she had a choice? Since it was foretold that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, then even before Mary's birth (she was specially selected to be without sin wasn't she?) she could not have had any choice but become the Mother of God.

Therefore God forced himself on Mary and God therefore is rapist.

This is why Santorum has these insane beliefs.

I'd say Santorum is merely a chauvinist, or playing to a chauvinist audience. The prejudice and the oppression of women came first, the bible was written to justify it.

Sarky

Don't rule out the possibility that he might just be a moron.

Sonics2k

gawker wrote: »

Not that I'd usually be one to agree with Santorum, but he was really saying life is a gift from god regardless of how it comes about from what I can see. He is not saying rape is a gift from god. Quite a big difference there in fairness. :rolleyes:

As for celestial rape, that would involve the virgin birth story being true

So, basically:
"Well, you may have been raped, had severe physical and emotional damage and possibly hate yourself, but hey, at least you have a kid now!"

What shíte.

MrStuffins

Sarky wrote: »

Don't rule out the possibility that he might just be a moron.

Nah, I don;t think anyone would call him that............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdfZmcuomcE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnjEYcT6n-s

MagicMarker

Sure didn't God rape Mary?

Dades

gawker wrote: »

Not that I'd usually be one to agree with Santorum, but he was really saying life is a gift from god regardless of how it comes about from what I can see. He is not saying rape is a gift from god. Quite a big difference there in fairness. :rolleyes:

I agree.

He's just sticking to his guns. As far as he's concerned life begins at conception regardless of how it comes about. He sees all life as a gift from God. An impossible question to answer and come out unscathed.

vibe666

isn't it supposed to be "the virgin birth"? surely that would mean that at the time of jesus's birth mary was STILL a virgin, so god would have magic'd the bun in there and therefore no rape occured, coerced or otherwise, since no actual penetration = no rape.

or am i missing something (as usual)?

sbsquarepants

In the words of the great Paddy McGuinness - No ridey, no rapey;)

The little baby jesus was beamed in, no rape there folks.

Santorums a fúcking clown though, nothing he says would surprise me.
What surpises me is how a country like america exists at all. It seems like a total oxymoron to me to be simultaeneously so advanced and yet so backwards.

MagicMarker

I can't believe you actually took my rape comment seriously, but okay.

gawker

As far as I know, Mormonism is the only Christian faith that teaches sex actually happened, or at least they used to (they disown a lot of their old and odd beliefs now).

c_man

Santorum believes a pregnancy due to rape is a gift from God.

I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal (in regards to Santorum). Isn't this what most Catholics believe, especially here in Ireland? Regardless of the circumstance of how it came about, they do consider life a gift.

I don't agree at all, but I can understand where they're coming from.

qrrgprgua

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'd say Santorum is merely a chauvinist, or playing to a chauvinist audience. The prejudice and the oppression of women came first, the bible was written to justify it.

Just because a Catholic man defends human life (in whatever stage or form) he is branded as chauvinist. If Society wants gender equality then there also should be gender respect. A man has the same right to voice his defence of human life as a woman.

Lets face it he does have a severely disabled daughter, Bella. So its not like he preaches an ideal he has lived with his wife.

qrrgprgua

Video of Santorum with his daughter Bella.

Doctors did not think should would survive past 6 months.

http://youtu.be/y_O_6ycisIE

fatmammycat

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Just because a Catholic man defends human life (in whatever stage or form) he is branded as chauvinist. If Society wants gender equality then there also should be gender respect. A man has the same right to voice his defence of human life as a woman.

Lets face his he does have a severely disabled daughter, Bella. So its not like he preaches an ideal he has lived with his wife.

He's considered a chauvinist because he tries to spin the result of rape as a gift from a non existent deity, like women ought to be grateful for the outcome of a serious sexual assault. How is that 'gender respect'? Who care if he enjoys his own child or not? What has that got to do with anything?

mikhail

I guess that depends on how much say his wife had in the matter.

irishh_bob

fatmammycat wrote: »

He's considered a chauvinist because he tries to spin the result of rape as a gift from a non existent deity, like women ought to be grateful for the outcome of a serious sexual assault. How is that 'gender respect'? Who care if he enjoys his own child or not? What has that got to do with anything?

religous people view everything as a gift from god

earthquakes
tsunamis
famine

all possitive acts by god which we should apparently be happy about

MagicMarker

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Video of Santorum with his daughter Bella.

Doctors did not think should would survive past 6 months.

http://youtu.be/y_O_6ycisIE

How nice of him to use his family like that, the dramatic music makes me want to vote for him anyway!

qrrgprgua

fatmammycat wrote: »

He's considered a chauvinist because he tries to spin the result of rape as a gift from a non existent deity, like women ought to be grateful for the outcome of a serious sexual assault. How is that 'gender respect'? Who care if he enjoys his own child or not? What has that got to do with anything?

He is defending human LIFE as a gift from God. Whatever form that takes.

As horrific and Rape is. And Santorum is no defend a rapist or the action. But as terribe as the assault is. A Human life is not valued on the basis of what people think of it.

Pro abortion groups always hold up this argument as a point of justifying abortion.

Us believers take a simple stance that all life is sacred. No matter who you are, or how you were conceived you deserve respect.

MagicMarker

qrrgprgua wrote: »

He is defending human LIFE as a gift from God. Whatever form that takes.

As horrific and Rape is. And Santorum is no defend a rapist or the action. But as terribe as the assault is. A Human life is not valued on the basis of what people think of it.

Pro abortion groups always hold up this argument as a point of justifying abortion.

Us believers take a simple stance that all life is sacred. No matter who you are, or how you were conceived you deserve respect.

Can you list some pro abortion groups for us?

And by all life, do you just mean human life?

Do you respect Hitler?

fatmammycat

qrrgprgua wrote: »

He is defending human LIFE as a gift from God. Whatever form that takes.

As horrific and Rape is. And Santorum is no defend a rapist or the action. But as terribe as the assault is. A Human life is not valued on the basis of what people think of it.

Pro abortion groups always hold up this argument as a point of justifying abortion.

Us believers take a simple stance that all life is sacred. No matter who you are, or how you were conceived you deserve respect.

So what, your belief doesn't make it so. Some people don't think a convicted murderer deserves to lose their life. In war certain lives are expendable. Human life is judged and weighed up all the time. There is already a life at stake in the case of rape; the life of the adult woman who has been violated. HER life comes first. And that's why pretending an unwanted and forced pregnancy is a 'gift' is such a pathetic joke.

ShooterSF

Wait. More importantly I thought black was the correct term and African American the incorrect one (as it assumes the person has African and American lineage and on top of that we use "white people").

qrrgprgua

fatmammycat wrote: »

So what, your belief doesn't make it so. Some people don't think a convicted murderer deserves to lose their life. In war certain lives are expendable. Human life is judged and weighed up all the time. There is already a life at stake in the case of rape; the life of the adult woman who has been violated. HER life comes first. And that's why pretending an unwanted and forced pregnancy is a 'gift' is such a pathetic joke.

Well that's where Christian Philosophical and Religious views are quiet clear. Human life, its intrinsic worth, from Conception to Death, Is not based on the subjective view of others. Human life have an intrinsic objective value in it itself. All human life is sacred.

In cases where a pregnant mothers life is a risk, all must be done to save both life's. If both lives can't live, then doctors should treat the mothers life, It may mean letting the Child die. But the intention was never to abort, it was a result of trying to help both, but medically impossible to save both, so the Mother is saved.

We don't have exceptions to the value of life.

Do these people born from rape have less value?
http://youtu.be/3Dal0opeSnQ

Last point rape is not a "gift from God"..... But all human life is.

fatmammycat

Does anyone or has anyone claimed people who are born from rape have less value due to the nature of their conception? People are people, some people will be lesser, some greater in life, their 'value' will then be judged - by society– accordingly. None from them were gifts from a god and what their mothers decided to do is commendable, but ultimately it was up to them. In the same way it should be up to a woman who doesn't want to carry a rapist's sperm to term.
Talk about 'gifts' and gods is claptrap and based on religious wishful thinking. Santorum, a happily married man who has not been raped and impregnanted, would do well to remember that before he opens his mouth.

qrrgprgua

fatmammycat wrote: »

Does anyone or has anyone claimed people who are born from rape have less value due to the nature of their conception? People are people, some people will be lesser, some greater in life, their 'value' will then be judged - by society– accordingly. None from them were gifts from a god and what their mothers decided to do is commendable, but ultimately it was up to them. In the same way it should be up to a woman who doesn't want to carry a rapist's sperm to term.
Talk about 'gifts' and gods is claptrap and based on religious wishful thinking. Santorum, a happily married man who has not been raped and impregnanted, would do well to remember that before he opens his mouth.

She is not carrying sperm. Once an egg is fertilised it is a separate new life, it have value as it is.

Santorum voices what millions of us Believers already believe. He hasn't invented anything new. All human life is sacred.

Human life, what ever its form, Rich, Poor, Healthy, Sick. No matter who your parents are, Human life always has an intrinsic value that should be respected. As person has value and that value is not determined by what others think or don't think.

Circumstances around how a person is conceived does not mean they are any more or less a person. Once a person exists, and existence starts at conception. They should be respected.

Our value as human beings does not depend upon our being perfect according to some arbitrary standard imposed by other human beings.

fatmammycat

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Circumstances around how a person is conceived does not mean they are any more or less a person. Once a person exists, and existence starts at conception. They should be respected.

Our value as human beings does not depend upon our being perfect according to some arbitrary standard imposed by other human beings.

Once again, you seem to be arguing against a point no on is making. No one said anything about whether humans ought to be perfect or not. Humans, perfect or otherwise, are born and die every second of the day. Their lives are not 'sacred' any more than the life of a fly or a dog or a cow is sacred. Adding woo/religious talk to biology makes a mockery of biology.
As to humans being respected, the woman who has been violated deserves respect, and compassion, and understanding. AND her decisions to do what she needs to do need to be hers and hers alone. So screw Santorum and his nonsense about rape gifts, he should takes his head out of his ass and stick to politics.

qrrgprgua

fatmammycat wrote: »

Once again, you seem to be arguing against a point no on is making. No one said anything about whether humans ought to be perfect or not. Humans, perfect or otherwise, are born and die every second of the day. Their lives are not 'sacred' any more than the life of a fly or a dog or a cow is sacred. Adding woo/religious talk to biology makes a mockery of biology.
As to humans being respected, the woman who has been violated deserves respect, and compassion, and understanding. AND her decisions to do what she needs to do need to be hers and hers alone. So screw Santorum and his nonsense about rape gifts, he should takes his head out of his ass and stick to politics.

I clearly argued my Points. What does your Screw Santorum post have to stand behind it? (apart for ignorance)

fatmammycat

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I clearly argued my Points. What does your Screw Santorum post have to stand behind it? (apart for ignorance)

Ignorance, hah. You're the one dragging magic into the equation with all your unsupported 'sacred' waffle. I stand by the opinion the woman who has been violated deserves our respect and compassion and that her decision what to do about her unwanted pregnancy ought to be her own.

qrrgprgua

fatmammycat wrote: »

Ignorance, hah. You're the one dragging magic into the equation with all your unsupported 'sacred' waffle. I stand by the opinion the woman who has been violated deserves our respect and compassion and that her decision what to do about her unwanted pregnancy ought to be her own.

Who is saying she doesn't?

Where does magic enter my posts?

I argued that a person has value... No matter who the are or how they were conceived.

CerebralCortex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Who is saying she doesn't?

Where does magic enter my posts?

I argued that a person has value... No matter who the are or how they were conceived.

Problems arise with your definition of person-hood.

fatmammycat

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Who is saying she doesn't?

Where does magic enter my posts?

I argued that a person has value... No matter who the are or how they were conceived.

No you argued all life was sacred, hence you have included magic into your argument. I've already pointed out that the value of life is fluid; war, death-row, euthanasia, life support machines, all tamper with life. We as a society place various values on 'life'. In the case of a rape I place MORE value on the life of the woman who has been violated than the blastocyct or fetus she carries. It's not that difficult to understand, is it? Pretending the outcome of rape is some gift from a mystical being is ludicrous.

qrrgprgua

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Problems arise with your definition of person-hood.

And problems arise with YOUR definition. My puts the person at the centre. Conception of the person to their natural death.

Your definition is subjective to a multitude of theories.

fatmammycat

Is the woman who has been raped not as important then?

Daftendirekt

qrrgprgua wrote: »

And problems arise with YOUR definition. My puts the person at the centre. Conception of the person to their natural death.

Your definition is subjective to a multitude of theories.

No, your definition places an arbitrary biological process at the centre of person-hood. Most other people recognise it's much more complex than that. Conception is not the magical beginning of a new life, any more than implantation is, or the point the gamete itself is produced

Also, you seem to value compassion towards a non-sentient embryo above compassion towards a sentient person. Which, to be blunt, isn't right.

qrrgprgua

Daftendirekt wrote: »

No, your definition places an arbitrary biological process at the centre of person-hood. Most other people recognise it's much more complex than that. Conception is not the magical beginning of a new life, any more than implantation is, or the point the gamete itself is produced

Also, you seem to value compassion towards a non-sentient embryo above compassion towards a sentient person. Which, to be blunt, isn't right.

So your definition of person is "sentient person". Follow the logic of your argument.

My compassion is towards all human beings. Without discrimination.

MrStuffins

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So your definition of person is "sentient person". Follow the logic of your argument.

My compassion is towards all human beings. Without discrimination.

Well then why are you talking about a collection of cells as if it's a human being?

Daftendirekt

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So your definition of person is "sentient person". Follow the logic of your argument.

I didn't provide a definition of person-hood, I just pointed out a problem with yours. But I do consider sentience an important part of what gives life its value. Do you disagree?

My compassion is towards all human beings. Without discrimination.

I don't doubt that it is, but I find it strange that you include microscopic cells in your definition of human being.

AtomicHorror

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So your definition of person is "sentient person". Follow the logic of your argument.

My compassion is towards all human beings. Without discrimination.

We can grow human cells in culture dishes by the billions. I've done it. They're not special and they're certainly not worth more to me than the health, safety, sanity or happiness of a real person. Hell, I've killed off buckets of the things merely because I'd grown too many of them. Embryos differs from those dishes of cells only in that they're much smaller and simpler but have the potential to become real human beings under very specific circumstances. Again, not worth more to me than the happiness of an actual extant human being.

A human- a real human- is that jumble of cells, plus a couple of years of complex biological and psychological growth and development as modified by an unique sequence of environments and interactions with other living things. An embryo, fetus- or even an infant- is not a human being in the same way that a 25 year old is. To deny that requires that you ignore lots of things that 25 year olds have, or pretend that embryos have things that they don't have.

Arguments about souls are irrelevant. If they exist, we can't measure them and so we can't include them in our decision making. The same for God. We can only work from what we know. Otherwise we're stuck forever trying to placate countless differing subjective opinions like yours. They change on a whim and the people who hold them seem to consider them unquestionable. That's utterly useless to us.

Compassion towards human beings is admirable. Failing to discriminate between human beings and human cells is delusional.

qrrgprgua

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We can grow human cells in culture dishes by the billions. I've done it. They're not special and they're certainly not worth more to me than the health, safety, sanity or happiness of a real person. Hell, I've killed off buckets of the things merely because I'd grown too many of them.

Compassion towards human beings is admirable. Failing to discriminate between human beings and human cells is delusional.

1. If you have grown human embryos and killed them off buckets of them... I would have expected a little more thought in your post.

2. IF (and I don't think you did) but if you have fertilised and separated an embryo (as thats the only way to "grow" them). Then you will know at the present time that these cells are unique in every way. Unique DNA. Any medic knows.. Certainly basic science. That the embryonic Cell is NOT like any other cell from a human body. How an embryo reacts as a cell is unique.

3. Given the current Irish laws on embryonic research.. You didn't do it legally in Ireland. (not buckets of them).

4. There is no other way a person can exist other than from a embryo. Its perfectly logical (religion apart) to trace ones being back to conception. For example you will often hear a mother say.. We conceived on such date/occasion/ etcc... The baby/Person/Human being does not come into existence at 5 or 10 weeks or when laws decide that the a child is a child.

5. Where science an religion clash is the value that is placed on the embryo. It is a cell at the moment of conception and without the womb will die. My philosophy and Religion sees this cell as the start of human existence. And as such there is value in its protection a respect.

6. Even in countries that are currently allowing embryonic research. There are strict laws on this and the destruction of embryos. To "grow" one hundred embryos from a single embryo would interesting. Billions...... :rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

qrrgprgua wrote: »

1. If you have grown human embryos and killed them off buckets of them... I would have expected a little more thought in your post.

Total reading comprehension fail here. Tell me, why should we bother with you if all you're going to do is assume what we've written instead of reading it?

Read my post again in a calmer frame of mind. Do it carefully. Then make a counter argument that isn't based off an immediate and massive misunderstanding.

AtomicHorror

Screw it, I'll bite.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

1. If you have grown human embryos and killed them off buckets of them... I would have expected a little more thought in your post.

I didn't at any point claim to have grown or disposed of embryos, but it says a lot for your critical reading skills and general bias that you missed that.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

2. IF (and I don't think you did) but if you have fertilised and separated an embryo (as thats the only way to "grow" them). Then you will know at the present time that these cells are unique in every way. Unique DNA. Any medic knows.. Certainly basic science. That the embryonic Cell is NOT like any other cell from a human body. How an embryo reacts as a cell is unique.

You want "basic science"? Firstly, an embryo is not single celled. That's a zygote. An embryo in its simplest form is two genetically identical cells split by mitosis from a zygote. Embryonic cells are not genetically unique- there are other genetically identical embryonic cells. There may be several hundred depending on the development stage.

The zygote is genetically unique (at least at the moment of conception), but so are the zygotes of every eukaryotic species in existence. Being unique certainly has some value, but if that value is greater than the happiness of a living and sentient human, your priorities are very different to mine. I'm also confident that you don't give the genetic uniqueness of seaweed zygotes much value. So the uniqueness thing by itself is a non-argument.

Unless you value the uniqueness of all things in direct correlation to their degree of uniqueness, that can't enter into the value equation.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

3. Given the current Irish laws on embryonic research.. You didn't do it legally in Ireland. (not buckets of them).

As with point one, if you can't read and understand a few sentences of an argument, this discussion is not going anywhere useful.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

4. There is no other way a person can exist other than from a embryo.

There's no way that an embryo can exist apart from coming from a zygote and no way a zygote can exist apart from coming from a sperm cell and an ovum. And they can't exist without coming from meiotic cells in our parents. So what?

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its perfectly logical (religion apart) to trace ones being back to conception.

Why not back further to the sperm and ovum? Because they were separate cells? We are composed of trillions of separate cells. Because they are not genetically us? But they are, half and half. So what were we then? A distributed human in two parts? What about the precursor cells that sperm and ovum came from? Were we a human being partly mixed with two other beings?

You just want to make the distinction as simple as possible, so you draw the line somewhere neat- at the combination point. But that's all it is- the combination of one half of our genome with the other half. We are not our genetics alone. You would agree with that we are not just our genetics, even if it's for non-testable reasons like the existence of souls.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

For example you will often hear a mother say.. We conceived on such date/occasion/ etcc... The baby/Person/Human being does not come into existence at 5 or 10 weeks or when laws decide that the a child is a child.

Again, what does the point of conception matter? That's the moment our unique genetic makeup is combined into one cell. That's not a irrelevant moment, but it was pre-determined by the genetic makeup of the sperm and ovum that fused to form the zygote. And as I've said, and as you would no doubt agree under other circumstances, we are not defined by our genetics alone.

You reckon the critical extra ingredient is a soul- but you can't define nor demonstrate what that is or detect its emergence. I say the extra ingredient is phenotype. The development of that unique genetic potential under an even more unique set of modulating stimuli over tens of thousands of hours and beyond. Your version has a neat little non-human to human border which can't be verified empirically, whereas my version is all awkward shades of grey.

So sorry, but reality is complicated. You can't use a 2000 year old cheatsheet to get through it. You have to learn about the world and make difficult judgements instead.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

5. Where science an religion clash is the value that is placed on the embryo.

Obviously. What is your point?

qrrgprgua wrote: »

It is a cell at the moment of conception and without the womb will die.

The sperm and ovum are also cells which between them possess our full genetic code. Without conception and a womb, they will both die. Most of the time, they do.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

My philosophy and Religion sees this cell as the start of human existence. And as such there is value in its protection a respect.

Our values need to be informed by knowledge. Example: we are increasingly becoming aware of the existence of theory of mind, self awareness and emotions in various animal species. This requires us at each step to reappraise our valuation of them. Counterexample: we are increasingly aware of how limited these very traits are in humans under the age of 2 years and prior to birth. We must also consider what that means for our valuations. The values enshrined in a 2000 year old document lack 2000 years worth of newer knowledge, for better or worse.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

6. Even in countries that are currently allowing embryonic research. There are strict laws on this and the destruction of embryos. To "grow" one hundred embryos from a single embryo would interesting. Billions...... :rolleyes:

Reading comprehension is usually taught in primary school.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Unique DNA.

So anything that has unique DNA is valuable is it?

I assume you feel very bad about the few million bacteria you just killed while having lunch :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is that the only thing that makes human beings special and valuable over other creatures (such as the unlucky bacteria in your gut) is the human brain and the person that this brain can produce. Lots of species have hands, lots of hair, lots have livers, lots of have hearts, lots of toes. Only humans (and possible some of the other apes) produce a brain like ours that creates a person. This is what makes humans special, it is not the rest of our bodies, it is not the DNA in our cells. A body without a brain would be of no value as a person no matter how much unique DNA was contained in its cells, which is why people turn off life support machines for people who have suffered massive brain damage. The brain is the person and the person is the brain.

A zygote does not have a human brain. An embryo does not have a human brain. A fetus will have a human brain but not for months of development. They are just cells, in the same way that the bacteria in your gut are just cells. Without a brain the life form is as special as any other life form without a human brain, ie not that special at all.

If you destroy these cells before the person exists yet, before the brain required to produce that person exists, you are destroying nothing of significant value because no person exists. It is the same as destroying a sperm cell or an egg cell, something you seem to have no trouble with. They are human cells. But they are just human cells, they are not a person. Why? No brain.

Turtwig

Totally off topic but was anyone else given a very strong vivid reminder of Metroid while reading Zombrex's post?

qrrgprgua

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Screw it, I'll bite.



I didn't at any point claim to have grown or disposed of embryos, but it says a lot for your critical reading skills and general bias that you missed that.



You want "basic science"? Firstly, an embryo is not single celled. That's a zygote. An embryo in its simplest form is two genetically identical cells split by mitosis from a zygote. Embryonic cells are not genetically unique- there are other genetically identical embryonic cells. There may be several hundred depending on the development stage.

The zygote is genetically unique (at least at the moment of conception), but so are the zygotes of every eukaryotic species in existence. Being unique certainly has some value, but if that value is greater than the happiness of a living and sentient human, your priorities are very different to mine. I'm also confident that you don't give the genetic uniqueness of seaweed zygotes much value. So the uniqueness thing by itself is a non-argument.

Unless you value the uniqueness of all things in direct correlation to their degree of uniqueness, that can't enter into the value equation.



As with point one, if you can't read and understand a few sentences of an argument, this discussion is not going anywhere useful.



There's no way that an embryo can exist apart from coming from a zygote and no way a zygote can exist apart from coming from a sperm cell and an ovum. And they can't exist without coming from meiotic cells in our parents. So what?



Why not back further to the sperm and ovum? Because they were separate cells? We are composed of trillions of separate cells. Because they are not genetically us? But they are, half and half. So what were we then? A distributed human in two parts? What about the precursor cells that sperm and ovum came from? Were we a human being partly mixed with two other beings?

You just want to make the distinction as simple as possible, so you draw the line somewhere neat- at the combination point. But that's all it is- the combination of one half of our genome with the other half. We are not our genetics alone. You would agree with that we are not just our genetics, even if it's for non-testable reasons like the existence of souls.



Again, what does the point of conception matter? That's the moment our unique genetic makeup is combined into one cell. That's not a irrelevant moment, but it was pre-determined by the genetic makeup of the sperm and ovum that fused to form the zygote. And as I've said, and as you would no doubt agree under other circumstances, we are not defined by our genetics alone.

You reckon the critical extra ingredient is a soul- but you can't define nor demonstrate what that is or detect its emergence. I say the extra ingredient is phenotype. The development of that unique genetic potential under an even more unique set of modulating stimuli over tens of thousands of hours and beyond. Your version has a neat little non-human to human border which can't be verified empirically, whereas my version is all awkward shades of grey.

So sorry, but reality is complicated. You can't use a 2000 year old cheatsheet to get through it. You have to learn about the world and make difficult judgements instead.



Obviously. What is your point?



The sperm and ovum are also cells which between them possess our full genetic code. Without conception and a womb, they will both die. Most of the time, they do.



Our values need to be informed by knowledge. Example: we are increasingly becoming aware of the existence of theory of mind, self awareness and emotions in various animal species. This requires us at each step to reappraise our valuation of them. Counterexample: we are increasingly aware of how limited these very traits are in humans under the age of 2 years and prior to birth. We must also consider what that means for our valuations. The values enshrined in a 2000 year old document lack 2000 years worth of newer knowledge, for better or worse.



Reading comprehension is usually taught in primary school.

1. I accept your point on not reading your original post. Apologies.

2. Regarding the Sperm and Egg (separate) they don't have the same value as zygote as neither have the potential in themselves to become a person..

That is why if a woman who is raped were to present herself at a Catholic Hospital after the rape (Talking mostly about those hospitals in USA) The correct course of action from a Medical and Faith point of view would be to administer emergency contraception. Given that it may take a couple of hours to conceive there is nothing wrong with stopping conception as the victim did not consent to this. Just because forced intercourse happened does not mean conception can happen. Ethically, Morally and Medically emergency contraception should be used in that case. (that's my catholic point of view)



Look if you don't want to believe in my point of view on respect for human life, That is your decision. That Christian believe in the respect for each human being is nothing new. That we believe you exist as a person from conception is nothing new. The point I am making is that Circumstances... Whatever they be, Do not make a person, Child any less so.

Sarky

So, how do you feel about miscarriages? Did god change his mind? Is someone responsible for murder? Did the foetus commit suicide?

Knasher

qrrgprgua wrote: »

we believe you exist as a person from conception

Hypothetically if you were in a situation where you were given a choice between saving the life of a single two year old child or a freezer containing 1,000 zygotes, which would you choose?

MrPudding

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Look if you don't want to believe in my point of view on respect for human life, That is your decision. That Christian believe in the respect for each human being is nothing new. That we believe you exist as a person from conception is nothing new. The point I am making is that Circumstances... Whatever they be, Do not make a person, Child any less so.

The problem is your belief has no actual factual basis. You have nothing other than your churches teachings to hang this opinion off. That is fine, I suppose, most of you views on life in general are likely similarly groundless.

What are your feeling on this one?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

MrP

qrrgprgua

MrPudding wrote: »

The problem is your belief has no actual factual basis. You have nothing other than your churches teachings to hang this opinion off. That is fine, I suppose, most of you views on life in general are likely similarly groundless.

What are your feeling on this one?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

MrP

A Child is a Child. Do we by our views/Laws/Opinions add or subtract value from a Child?

I think in the case above the decision should be to respect life. However a woman who have been raped have been known to become deeply depressed, If an unwanted pregancy were to result in the detriment of the mother life.. (she would take it) then doctors need to make an informed decision. The intention is not to abort, but it may need to be done to protect the woman. However this does not mean the Child is any less a child, but simply that given the child and mother would not both survive then the focus must be given to protect the mother.

As a Catholic/Christians we have our believes and our morals. But they need to be applied with compassion and understanding.

Brings to mind a case a Japanese friend told me about from Tsumani when a Father could not keep hold of his 2 kids and made decision to hold on to just one. He love both, Impossible situation, but a decision had to be made/ All die or try and save one. Letting go of his child did not mean that child was any less a child or any less loved or any less a human being.

The same way a Child exists from conception and must be respected, but complex situations may mean choices are needed as I say above.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

2. Regarding the Sperm and Egg (separate) they don't have the same value as zygote as neither have the potential in themselves to become a person..

That logic doesn't hold up to much examination.

If that is the case that the zygote is valuable because of the potential it possesses why not hold the sperm and egg valuable, together as a pair given that they produce that zygote . The sperm and egg 2 second before fertilization have as much potential to become a person as the zygote two seconds after fertilization.

Picking conception as the point when something does or doesn't have the potential to become a human person seems utterly arbitrary and conflicts with some simply logic, that being that by definition before the zygote that produced me existed there existed a sperm cell that would produce me and an egg cell that would produce me.

If you could travelled back in time and destroyed either that sperm cell or that egg cell I would not exist, as much as if you had destroyed the zygote that would eventually produce me.

Given that it is impossible to say that my zygote had the potential to become me, but my sperm cell didn't and neither did my egg cell. Basic history contradicts that, since the sperm cell did become me as did the egg cell.

If the argument is that if we destroy X then person Y will never exist then this holds as much for the sperm and egg as it does for the zygote.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

A Child is a Child.
...
The same way a Child exists from conception and must be respected, but complex situations may mean choices are needed as I say above.

You have just declared that a child exists from conception, so you yourself are drawing a line in the sand as to when a child exists.

The problem is that the logic for that that you seem to be presenting is very shaky.

I have respect for both sides of the abortion debate when the person can make a solid logical argument that is consistent with its own terms. I used to support late term abortions until such an argument convinced me that this contradicted what I hold valuable in human existence.

What I can't stand though is arguments, on both side of the discussion, that fall apart on close examination. The pro-choice side does this all the time, such as the argument that it is not ok to have an abortion except if you are raped (as if that has anything to do with the personhood of the fetus) or the argument that if you aren't a woman you can't comment.

But equally the anti-abortion side pull out some whoppers as well, and I'm afraid the lets just pick conception because it is a nice easy point to visualise argument is riddled with problems.

In my experience conception is picked for a number of reasons, none of which are that good. For a start it is easier to think of a "person" as a single physical entity. Trying to get people to think of a person as a sperm cell and an egg cell separated by distance mentally displeases people, even if it is logically consistent.

Secondly people tend to view sexual intercourse as an act on our part, (ie we join the cells together) and everything else from that on is a natural produces beyond our involvement and thus part of natural's plan.

Of course nature doesn't see it like that. Sexual intercourse is as part of its mechanism as hormones causing the uterus wall to thicken to facilitate implantation.

The idea then that conception is some sort of special beginning point finds little support in the reality of pregnancy. It is a human conceit, the need to view the zygote as some how "assembled" from the egg and the sperm and then a brand new "think", like a cake is different to eggs butter and flower.

I find though in matters of ethics it is quite dangerous to surrender oneself over to this sort of thinking.