Hypothetical question trips up pro-life radio host

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-03-08 05:18am

Because a sperm and an egg doesn't create death, it must create life. By that logic if a two year old creates a lego building, since he didn't create death, the lego building is alive. I guess we better rewrite the biology text books then, I just discovered a new species.

The question isn't so much does life begin at conception, but at what stage of life does one gain human rights. He would have been better off asking the shock jock do you believe a foetus has the same rights as a baby.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-03-08 09:53am

If someone puts that up at Rapture Ready, I'm betting 50 Bisonland Fun Bucks that it gets deleted in an hour.

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2006-03-08 09:54am

We FUCKING have OWNAGE!!!!!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2006-03-08 09:56am

Erm. It didn't stretch in my preview....

And yeah, there wasn't any right answer with a pro-life opinion, Mr. Asshole Jockey. That was the whole fucking point.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-03-08 10:03am

I am strictly pro choice but I really need to add this question to the guys saying that a sperm and an egg aren't creating life ie. the LEGO analogy - if we had a Mars Rover discover cellular activity on the par with what goes on at fertilization and a few weeks into the pregnancy would we not call that life? Would there not be celebrations and woots of joy from people on this planet?

Let's call a spade a spade. It's life whether we want to pretend it or not. What a prochoice person (should) believes is that the life at that stage has absolutely no rights in comparsion to the mother. It's only later on that only the most rabid pro choicer would disagree that the life is now becoming something more akin to human and so should be protected.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-03-08 10:05am

I think the difference is not only calling it a distinct lifeform from the mother in early stages, but calling it a human being. I don't think acknowledging that blastulae or embyros are alive is the issue.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2006-03-08 10:08am

I like it. If the question was whether to save 1 toddler or a cart filled with 5 babies, the answer would be obvious to everyone.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-03-08 10:09am

Zadius wrote:I like it. If the question was whether to save 1 toddler or a cart filled with 5 babies, the answer would be obvious to everyone.

Is it that obvious? What if the toddler is your child?

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-03-08 10:11am

Stravo wrote:I am strictly pro choice but I really need to add this question to the guys saying that a sperm and an egg aren't creating life ie. the LEGO analogy - if we had a Mars Rover discover cellular activity on the par with what goes on at fertilization and a few weeks into the pregnancy would we not call that life? Would there not be celebrations and woots of joy from people on this planet?

Let's call a spade a spade. It's life whether we want to pretend it or not. What a prochoice person (should) believes is that the life at that stage has absolutely no rights in comparsion to the mother. It's only later on that only the most rabid pro choicer would disagree that the life is now becoming something more akin to human and so should be protected.

A blastocyst is alive, and it is of the species "homo sapiens". It is not a person, however.

Terry Schiavo was also alive, and of the species homo sapiens. She was no longer a person after her accident.

If we can tell when "personhood" ends, we know what to look for when trying to figure out when it begins. Otherwise, sperm and egg cells are "alive" in the strictest sense, and the RCC is right.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-03-08 10:23am

Stravo wrote:Is it that obvious? What if the toddler is your child?

The calculus of the situation is clear (five lives versus one), but emotionally it isn't, I suppose. I, however, don't have kids so I can't make that call.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2006-03-08 10:25am

Stravo wrote:
Zadius wrote:I like it. If the question was whether to save 1 toddler or a cart filled with 5 babies, the answer would be obvious to everyone.
Is it that obvious? What if the toddler is your child?

That would obviously make the decision harder, but the hypothetical didn't add that dimension. Unless specifically stated, one has to assume there is no more of a personal attachment to one or the other in the scenario.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-08 10:33am

Stravo wrote:I am strictly pro choice but I really need to add this question to the guys saying that a sperm and an egg aren't creating life ie. the LEGO analogy - if we had a Mars Rover discover cellular activity on the par with what goes on at fertilization and a few weeks into the pregnancy would we not call that life? Would there not be celebrations and woots of joy from people on this planet?

Yes, but that's not what people mean when they say "life" in this context. They mean "life worth human-rights protection", not "life" as in "bacteria".

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-08 10:35am

Stravo wrote:
Zadius wrote:I like it. If the question was whether to save 1 toddler or a cart filled with 5 babies, the answer would be obvious to everyone.
Is it that obvious? What if the toddler is your child?

Yes, it is indeed that obvious. The correct moral choice is to save the five babies, regardless of whether you or I would actually take that action. You can't question the morality of a scenario by pointing out that a human being might not actually do the right thing, any more than you can disprove a simple statement like "corruption is wrong" by pointing out that you or I might not be immune to it if we were in power.