Stem Cell Controversy

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:01 pm

On the contrary, though an arm or a leg is part of a human body, a sperm cell is an entity in itself, dependent on the body for warmth (and nutrition?), but nevertheless is not part of the body as is a limb. A foetus is also dependent on its mother's body for warmth and nutrition ----- yet is not part of the mother's body.

Furthermore sperm cells can be ejaculated from the body without harm to the body. Can the same be said of an arm or a leg?

Considering a sperm cell to be part of the human body seems to be in the same or similar order of thought as considering a foetus to be a part of the human body.

Post by **__id_1783** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:00 pm

At what week gestation is a sperm cell able to survive outside of its daddy's testicles?

Post by **_schoel** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:37 pm

Paidion wrote:I am not disputing the immorality of destroying the pre-born for the sake of research. In case there is any misunderstanding, I want you to know that I have been involved in many pro-life marches, including participation in a march around a hospital in which abortions were performed. My first wife (now deceased) was the leader of the local pro-life association, and was active in promoting pro-life concepts to the public. I was totally supportive of her in these efforts.

All that I have written in my previous post, was written with the purpose of catalyzing deeper thinking on the matter.

Please understand that my response wasn't to accuse you of anything but to address the statements that you made. I enjoy a good dialog to study something from all sides.
I promise I won't call you a heretic

Paidion wrote:In my opinion, there is a spectrum of wrongness that goes along with the spectrum of pre-birth human development --- except that that spectrum is not fully gradual. There is a greater wrong done to a foetus after it begins to experience pain. For causing pain as well as killing, is worse that killing alone (even in the case of the killing of adult human beings).

What is gained, especially in the destruction of human life, by judging something on a scale of "wrongness"? If destroying a zygote is not as wrong as partial birth abortion, both are still wrong. If an action is already evil, should its degree of evil justify making that choice?

Dave

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:28 pm

What is gained, especially in the destruction of human life, by judging something on a scale of "wrongness"? If destroying a zygote is not as wrong as partial birth abortion, both are still wrong. If an action is already evil, should its degree of evil justify making that choice?

What is gained is the possibility that pro-life people will be listened to, instead of being rejected out-of-hand. For example, if pro-life people worked on eliminitating the most evil form of "abortion" (which is in reality "infanticide"), namely "partial-birth abortion" (It's still not a crime in Canada for doctors to perform them), there might be a start. But when I mentioned it to a candidate running for member of parliament, he immediately considered me a kook who opposed stem-cell research and even birth control, and so he refused to consider my arguments.

After getting "partial-birth abortion" outlawed, the next step would be to get people to understand the terrible pain babies undergo when they are aborted in the third trimester. By working gradually in this way, pro-life people might have a chance at making an impact. But by protesting all abortions as they presently do, pro-life people do not seem to be making any headway, at least not in Canada.

Post by **_Seth** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:44 am

Paidion wrote:By working gradually in this way, pro-life people might have a chance at making an impact.

Agreed, Paidion. I use this type of more pragmatic argument with friends and get called a liberal. Nice. I'd rather not insist on making all abortion illegal, and actually reduce the number of abortions, than insist on banning it and see no progress made. Here's the quote that REEEALLLY gets me in trouble:

"I'd rather have abortion legal but rare, than illegal but common."

To clarify. I'm agin' it. But I'd rather approach the issue from a moral rather than a legal standpoint. Make it unthinkable, not illegal.

<ducks>

Post by **__id_1783** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:41 pm

Slavery too was approached from a moral standpoint, with some success. Ultimately, it took the law to end it.

I can see some people stating that slavery should be unthinkable, but not illegal. Thankfully, we can STILL legislate some morality in this country, such as stealing, killing of adults and some "wanted" fetuses like Conor Peterson, and fraud.

While I understand and agree with part of Paidon's argument, I do disagree with the seeming value placed on the older fetuses.

I too think incremental stopping of abortion is better than none. But I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's better to kill an 8-week gestational baby than a 9 month old fetus. Even if more pain is supposedly felt by the 9-month old.

I think God feels an equal amount of pain for each life lost.

Life is life is life.... God values all of us.

God bless,
Liseux

Post by **_Rae** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:22 pm

After getting "partial-birth abortion" outlawed, the next step would be to get people to understand the terrible pain babies undergo when they are aborted in the third trimester.

I thought that partial birth abortions referred to babies that were aborted in the third trimester. Could someone please clarify this for me? Thanks!

Post by **_schoel** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:38 am

Paidion wrote:What is gained is the possibility that pro-life people will be listened to, instead of being rejected out-of-hand. For example, if pro-life people worked on eliminitating the most evil form of "abortion" (which is in reality "infanticide"), namely "partial-birth abortion" (It's still not a crime in Canada for doctors to perform them), there might be a start. But when I mentioned it to a candidate running for member of parliament, he immediately considered me a kook who opposed stem-cell research and even birth control, and so he refused to consider my arguments.

After getting "partial-birth abortion" outlawed, the next step would be to get people to understand the terrible pain babies undergo when they are aborted in the third trimester. By working gradually in this way, pro-life people might have a chance at making an impact. But by protesting all abortions as they presently do, pro-life people do not seem to be making any headway, at least not in Canada.

What if the response to your objections about partial birth abortion being painful and cruel was that technology found a way to make it painless for the baby?

The primary foundation that abortion is wrong is because human life is precious, even in the womb and that abortion is the taking of a life. Any other reasons have to be secondary to that, even if they are also true.

If any person dismisses a pro-lifer to a stereotype without fully recognizing the fullness of their argument, then we shouldn't pretend to agree with something (like early pregnancy abortion) that we really don't.

Many times, there is a dangerous, slippery slope to pragmatism that can undermine what is the ultimate goal.

Dave

Post by **__id_1783** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:16 pm

Rae wrote:
After getting "partial-birth abortion" outlawed, the next step would be to get people to understand the terrible pain babies undergo when they are aborted in the third trimester.
I thought that partial birth abortions referred to babies that were aborted in the third trimester. Could someone please clarify this for me? Thanks!

Hello Rae,

PBA is intact abortion, where the child is partially delivered and then the scissors go into the back of the head, and well, I guess you know the rest.

Another late-term abortion procedure involves dilating and evacuation/excavation- pulling the baby apart limb from limb and putting the body parts in a pan to piece it back together to make sure that the abortionist got all the parts out of the mother.

This is why some people say (not me) that the PBA ban will not save any babies, because this late-term D & E procedure is still available.

Many pro-lifers (like me) are targeting this one now.

God bless,
Liseux

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:11 pm

While I understand and agree with part of Paidon's argument, I do disagree with the seeming value placed on the older fetuses.

Again, it is not a matter of placing value on the older foetuses. It is a matter of concern for the pre-born children and the pain they must endure.

What if the response to your objections about partial birth abortion being painful and cruel was that technology found a way to make it painless for the baby?

That may well happen, and it would indeed prevent a lot of pain. Yet, somehow the killing of a mere fertilized human egg seems to be of a different order of activity from the killing of a fully developed baby, even if the latter suffers no pain.

What gets me is the ludicrous idea some people have that if they kill the baby prior to birth, or in the case of "partial-birth abortions" after the birth of all but the head, that they are not taking a human life, but merely destroying "tissue". But if the head comes out with the rest of the body, to kill it would be "murder" since it would be taking a human life.

Does man, by insisting that one of the defining characteristics of "human being" is "having been born" make any actual any difference between a baby immediately prior to birth, and immediately after birth? Should an arbitrarily chosen "point of humaness" define whether or not the taking of a child's life is murder?