A political post

[puzzle_me]

One of the above pictures is a human blastocyst, the other is an amoeba. Can you tell the difference? Do you think our President could?

If you put a baby into cryogenic storage, it will die. If you take a blastocyst out of cryogenic storage, it will die. How can you consider something a human life if it dies when you unfreeze it? While I might not agree with it, I can understand why someone considers a developing fetus a human life, but I cannot understand why someone can consider a blastocyst a human life.

Comments

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

In a burning building which would you save: 5 blastocysts in a petrie dish, or a two-year-old child?

[martian687.livejournal.com]

Wasn't there some high-level Bush administration person who replied that they'd take the petrie dish? Or am I just making that up?

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

they'd all HAVE to, to be logically consistent...

[olstad.livejournal.com]

I cannot understand why someone can consider a blastocyst a life.
Most people don't take physio or micro or molecular bio or even biochem. It was much easier for me to understand why people are so ill-informed after I taught sex ed to high schoolers (one of whom was pregnant) and they had no idea how a baby was made (they understood the sex part, but not the egg + sperm part). I choose to believe that people are un-educated. :)

Being pregnant and having a baby is also a magical, mystical process and after having been through the experience, my anger towards people who don't get it is somewhat lessened.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

also, people are told that it's just a teeny-tiny-mini-baby from the moment of conception, and six weeks later it's practically full-term and must be removed via a D&E. Check out pro-life lit sometime.

[ericakeithley.livejournal.com]

I think that the question of whether the blastocyst is human life or not is more a philosophic question than a biological question. Pro-lifers believe that human life begins at conception. That thought doesn't have much to do with what the arrangement of cell(s) looks like at that point or later in its development.

If you don't think that the blastocyst is human life, when does the embryo/fetus become human and why?

[martian687.livejournal.com]

I really liked Carl Sagan's answer to this question. He said that human life begins when the fetus begins to exhibit brain wave patterns that are recognizably human.

I spent several minutes trying to find a good source for that, and oddly enough I could only find two pro-life/anti-choice pages, both of which have on them (what I consider to be) pro-choice statements by Sagan:
http://www.bigissueground.com/philosophy/blair-whenlifebeginsclone.shtml
http://www.alysion.org/truelife/

(Unless the authors of the second page are arguing that it is wrong to destory sperm and eggs, at which point I have no idea what to say.)

[martian687.livejournal.com]

Here's a better source to Carl Sagan's thoughts.

[ericakeithley.livejournal.com]

I think, therefore I am. -- Descartes

Sagan's position seems to be a repetition of this idea. He doesn't go much into the details of his position, but it sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

I wonder what the consequence of Sagan's position would be for a living adult human who doesn't have recognizably human brain wave patterns. Since he doesn't give much detail on what the patterns are and how they are related to thought, I'm not sure if this is possible. But. I still wonder: would it be ok to kill a grown up human who doesn't exhibit the patterns?

[springbok1.livejournal.com]

On a biological, religious and a philosophical level, I draw a stark contrast between a 'life' and a 'potential life'. I also draw a contrast between 'alive' and 'a human life'.

I do not believe that a human life starts until a child is born. An implanted embryo or a developing fetus is a potential life, albeit I would say it's alive, so long as it's in a viable womb. An embryo without a womb is no more alive than the sperm at a donor bank.

The why's are based on a combination of Jewish law and biology. It's a much longer response than I have time to type out at the moment (impending move+impending travel means I should be packing either a box or a duffel bag at the moment), but I will come back and answer, most likely as a post.

[ericakeithley.livejournal.com]

I'll be interested to read your post. Good luck with the move and travel.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's basically a philosophical question, and it feels like an irreducible one (ie once you've decided it your position is set). However I know of at least one argument that does *not* derive the ultimate political stance from the question of life; to wit, the famous violinist argument.

(In case this isn't familiar: let us say you wake up one morning and discover that a famous violinist suffering from some strange disease has been hooked up to you and is now dependent on your biological processes for life. The violinist is fine as long as s/he gets use of your body and will die if disconnected. Do you have a moral obligation to allow the violinist to use your organs?

In this hypothetical the violinist is clearly alive by practically everyone's intuitive concepts of life, so it completely sidesteps the whole abortion = murder argument. The question becomes one of bodily integrity, self-ownership. Now I personally am quite rabid on the subject of self-ownership and my moral intuition is that, while it might be quite nice of me to let the violinist go on, it's not my obligation; they are, after all, my organs we're talking about, and no one else has a right to use them.

In my present situation I've made a voluntary choice to surrender full use of my organs for the time being and I'm quite merry about that indeed -- but one might also make a voluntary choice to support the violinist without being obligated to do so.)

[pearmeson.livejournal.com]

Though I think for a pro-lifer, the violinist argument would only be helpful in justifying a rape/incest exemption. They would argue that consensual sex corresponds to informed consent to the violinist arrangement, and that one can't back out of a deal like that.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you can read it that way; how you deal with the voluntary/involuntary thing is important. But there's also a question of sex you've only consented to because you believe the birth control is effective. I guess in my experience most pro-lifers don't draw a line between consent to sex and consent to pregnancy, but it's not an unreasonable line to draw in the modern era.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

(Actually, I tend to find that people who don't draw a line between consent to sex and consent to pregnancy are making a cruel and even mocking argument -- as in "you made your bed, now lie in it" -- an argument which treats pregnancy and subsequent childbirth and even parentage as a just punishment -- which is a more horrible attitude than I can even express. But I hold open the possibilities that they don't mean to come across that way, and that there are arguments which don't draw that line but also don't take glee in punishing people for their sexual iniquities. I'm just predisposed to react badly to that sort of argument because usually a bad reaction turns out to be the right one.)

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

(Pardon me, that would be their sexual "iniquities" in scare quotes, as iniquities wouldn't be my word. The anti-sex attitude that tends to come across in this sort of argument is one I don't share.)

[pearmeson.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

"They" often do fail to make a distinction between consent to sex and consent to pregnancy -- ostensibly because the "purpose" of sex is procreation.

The question of contraceptive effectiveness is usually answered by pro-lifers with "the only safe sex is NO sex." (and they want to keep it that way, apparently)

[ericakeithley.livejournal.com]

I think you are right that most pro-lifers don't mean to come across as suggesting that pregnancy is a "just punishment" of sex. I think they tend to see pregnancy as a natural result of sex. Which seems quite logical to me.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

(I should give props to the person who thought of the famous violinist argument, but her name has slipped my mind. Arguably I don't have a mind as I am being insomniac at 4:30 am now. I think it's because someone else is using my organs.)

[akakd.livejournal.com]

Considering (in my understanding, anyway) the vast majority of these frozen embryos are never called into service as an actual baby, or even an actual fetus, I simply cannot fathom how the administration's position could possibly be based on anything even resembling logical analysis. They'd really rather these embryos be tossed in the garbage than be used in experiments that could save the lives of millions of people who are already alive? Huh?

Maybe I'm just being overly simplistic, but to me this is a definition of a no-brainer.
(Reply to this)

[pearmeson.livejournal.com]

Many pro-lifers are against in-vitro techniques that leave extras for this very reason.

They also don't ever want there to be even the potential for a _market_ for them, and they reason that using up the "garbage" embryos would lead to a demand for more. They may also draw a distinction for themselves between "not allowing a potential life to develop" and "destroying that potential life."

I don't think it makes sense either...

[175560.livejournal.com]

Top is blastocyst, bottom is amoeba. Duh.

Can't everyone tell the difference? All you have to do is look for the soul. It's right there in plain sight.