Science and ethics

[numinus]

It is a position that a great number of people in history have embraced. German researchers made great strides in medicine when they were allowed to experiment on human beings. The same can be said for soviet doctors.

Correct.

However, what is the use of technology when it is not made to serve humanity? In this fundamental question lies the ethical dilemma of science.

 

[palerider]

Correct.

However, what is the use of technology when it is not made to serve humanity? In this fundamental question lies the ethical dilemma of science.

They overcome the dilemma that human embryos cause in the same manner that hitler overcame the dilemma with the jews. He convinced himself that they were not actually human beings. In his private writings, he described jews as an "infection", literally not humans. I believe that in the end, he actually believed this.

Look through abortion threads across the internet. The same sort of thing has been happening in that pro choicers try very hard to convince themselves that unborns are not, in fact, human beings. They tell themselves, and anyone who will listen this lie in spite of the fact that there is no credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

 

[numinus]

The ethical dilemma represented is in my mind: do you save the many potential people or do you save the one actualized person? All are human beings.

Apparently, you don't consider all as human beings. That is quite evident when you felt the need to attach the words 'potential' and 'actualized'. The only difference, to my mind, is that the embryo is incapable of defending himself. Otherwise, the answer is clear and simple. One cannot pretend to save another human being at the expense of another - except when the life in question is his own.

I have my answer and my reasons which in the end are the same reason that if it were a choice between the mother's life and the fetus' - I would choose the mother.

This is not the same.

The medical practitioner is obliged to save both. And if the circumstances can only allow one to live, then the doctor tries to save the one with the better chance of surviving whatever procedure is required.

There is a vast difference between this and the use of living human embryos for scientific research.

 

[palerider]

There is a vast difference between this and the use of living human embryos for scientific research.

UNFAIR!!! UNFAIR!!!

You are asking that the pro choice side build an argument to defend their position based on rational thinking. Everyone knows that there is nothing rational about their position.

 

[Coyote]

I simply cannot see the logic in such a thing.

How does anyone comply with a moral imperative and deny the very same imperative at the same time? You wish to alleviate the suffering of a human being by killing another?

Is not that the most ridiculous proposition you have ever heard?

Ethics is full of very real quagmires and very few easy answers. No...it's not exactly ridiculous. People have considered it in any number of ways - for example, should not prisoners be used for that purpose? Or which is greater: the individual or the collective good of the society?

By the way - because I post these things does not mean I agree with them.

 

[Coyote]

UNFAIR!!! UNFAIR!!!

You are asking that the pro choice side build an argument to defend their position based on rational thinking. Everyone knows that there is nothing rational about their position.

Here you are wrong. Pro-choice is rational because it's regarded as a matter of choice on what one can do with one's body - not an imperative. It's as rational as your own argument PaleRider. You've convinced me to alter my stance on abortion significantly but not in every situation. And it wasn't rational argument alone that did it because - in the end, I still feel very strongly that while I will not choose abortion, no one has the right to force something in or on my body against my will that I had no consent to.

 

[Coyote]

It is a position that a great number of people in history have embraced. German researchers made great strides in medicine when they were allowed to experiment on human beings. The same can be said for soviet doctors.

Yes - exactly. But it comes down - in the end - to which has the greater moral imperative: the good of the one or the good of the many?

This same argument can be applied to the death penalty too. The "good of the many" dictates that a person be executed if judged guilty of certain crimes despite the possibility that they might in fact, be innocent. The "good of the one" dictates that we keep him incarcerated for life despite the possibility that he might escape or be released and commit further crimes.

Does the "good of the many" mean that "the one" should be sacrificed? If you were a Nazi or a Soviet era doctor or one of the Tuskegee doctors you would say "yes".

Personally, I say no.

 

[Coyote]

Apparently, you don't consider all as human beings. That is quite evident when you felt the need to attach the words 'potential' and 'actualized'. The only difference, to my mind, is that the embryo is incapable of defending himself.

And a born baby is?

I would look at it in another dimension. Which would suffer? It is suffering that I would react to.

Otherwise, the answer is clear and simple. One cannot pretend to save another human being at the expense of another - except when the life in question is his own.

But in real life you can't save everyone.

This is not the same.

The medical practitioner is obliged to save both. And if the circumstances can only allow one to live, then the doctor tries to save the one with the better chance of surviving whatever procedure is required.

There is a vast difference between this and the use of living human embryos for scientific research.

I'm not really talking specifically about the use of living human embryos for research - just that the author of the topic considered the ethical implications of what he was doing. He may not have made the choice you would but that doesn't mean he neither cares nor is concerned for the ethics involved.

 

[palerider]

Here you are wrong. Pro-choice is rational because it's regarded as a matter of choice on what one can do with one's body - not an imperative.

Pro choice is irrational because it isn't "one's body" that is being torn limb from limb or burned to death in a saline solution. The choice has nothing to do with doing a thing to "ones" body, the choice is about doing a thing to another's body. The irrationality lies in believing, or attempting to believe that it is about one's own body.

It's as rational as your own argument PaleRider. You've convinced me to alter my stance on abortion significantly but not in every situation. And it wasn't rational argument alone that did it because - in the end, I still feel very strongly that while I will not choose abortion, no one has the right to force something in or on my body against my will that I had no consent to.

It is only rational if you state it in terms that reflect the reality. Make a rational argument for allowing one human being to kill another human being without legal consequence for any or no reason if you want to make a rational argument.

So are you arguing against abortion, or the killing of any unborn who is not the product of rape?

 

[Coyote]

dup post

 

[Coyote]

Pro choice is irrational because it isn't "one's body" that is being torn limb from limb or burned to death in a saline solution. The choice has nothing to do with doing a thing to "ones" body, the choice is about doing a thing to another's body. The irrationality lies in believing, or attempting to believe that it is about one's own body.

No matter how you cut and dice it - two bodies are involved. You, the pro-lifers, would remove the maternal body from consideration. The pro-choicers would remove the fetal body from consideration. Neither can justly claim total rationality.

It is only rational if you state it in terms that reflect the reality. Make a rational argument for allowing one human being to kill another human being without legal consequence for any or no reason if you want to make a rational argument.

That is not the only parameter for "rational" or "reality".

So are you arguing against abortion, or the killing of any unborn who is not the product of rape?

Yes. And I do not include the pill.

 

[vyo476]

No matter how you cut and dice it - two bodies are involved. You, the pro-lifers, would remove the maternal body from consideration. The pro-choicers would remove the fetal body from consideration. Neither can justly claim total rationality.

So how do you justify taking a side?

 

[Coyote]

So how do you justify taking a side?

I'm not sure.

 

[numinus]

And a born baby is?

I would look at it in another dimension. Which would suffer? It is suffering that I would react to.

So, it is ok to kill someone if you render him unconcious and anesthesized first?

But in real life you can't save everyone.

Correct. In real life as in any ethical consideration, you MAY NOT save a life at the expense of another - unless it is your own.

I'm not really talking specifically about the use of living human embryos for research - just that the author of the topic considered the ethical implications of what he was doing. He may not have made the choice you would but that doesn't mean he neither cares nor is concerned for the ethics involved.

Any ethical consideration MUST exclude considerations of personal profit or aggrandizement. That is why a moral good is thought of as ITS OWN REWARD. I have no problems when personal profit coincides with a moral good. By all means, reap the rewards.

However, ethical dilemmas are so precisely because what one WANTS to do contradicts what one OUGHT to do.

 

[numinus]

No matter how you cut and dice it - two bodies are involved. You, the pro-lifers, would remove the maternal body from consideration. The pro-choicers would remove the fetal body from consideration. Neither can justly claim total rationality.



That is not the only parameter for "rational" or "reality".



Yes. And I do not include the pill.

Correction.

What pro-choice is actually saying is that the imperative of human life, (from which ALL CHOICES are made possible to begin with) can be made subservient to choice.

This is an UNPRECEDENTED AND COMPLETELY BASELESS assertion.