Pro-stem-cell-research yet pro-Christianity?

[The New California Republic]

And for the chain bit, imagine that someone was literally physically connected to the house, skin to chain to house, in such a way that the only way the two could be disconnected would be by tearing the skin, or breaking the chain or house. Then what?

If you really want it to be more equivalent, the person would be plumbed into the house for nourishment, and thereby obtain food and water from the house via a tube, and the house would be alive and sentient.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And fetuses aborted after 22 weeks are usually aborted for legitimate medical reasons anyway.

Which reminds me. While ESCR is more popular than abortion, even supporters of both don't accuse its critics of being "pro-death" like they do with supporters of third-trimester restrictions. Why is that?

Which is true, and would be considered permissible provided it met the criteria necessary for "double-effect"; i.e., the intent is not to abort the fetus but to save the woman's life. That doesn't mean the fetus is not considered a person or any other diminution of its worth as a human life, of course.

The intent of ESCR is not to kill the zygote but to save lives. So it's still pretty similar.

[Vetalia]

These "overly-zealous individuals" were numerous enough to swing the balance of an election. With no reason to believe religion was the only thing holding even worse forms of zealotry back, what defense is there for the rest of us to support a key, irreplaceable ingredient in that zealotry?

Which election are you talking about?

Historically, Christianity's correlated with some pretty awful other things over these past 2000 years too, but without them happening in democracies Christianity's share in the blame is not as clear-cut.

True, but it also did an enormous amount of good during that same period. This doesn't diminish culpability for the evils committed by Christian churches during their history but even that pales in comparison to the horrific crimes committed by secular ideologies in the 20th century such as fascism and communism.

[The New California Republic]

As an analogy it just fucking fails, because there are far too many differences between them.

Not on the issue that matters, as you all have still failed to demonstrate how the two are different on that one issue. On all other issues, the two could be completely different. The analogy, "Light is to dark as tall is to short," is a perfectly valid analogy even though light and tall are two completely different concepts, because light and dark are both opposites of each other just as tall and short are.

We pretty much have, as shown by the fact that it has been pointed out that a person in a house isn't physically plumbed into it as an offshoot of its utilities.

[Estanglia]

Except it does though. It shows how a fetus in a woman is not equivalent to a person in a house, contrary to your assertion.


I wasn't the one comparing fetuses to splinters, but you very much were saying that women were equivalent to houses.

It's an analogy. Of course a house isn't literally a pregnant woman. All that matters for the analogy, though, is the one aspect, the aspect of two distinct things not being one thing. And three of the four assertions fronted have nothing to do with whether or not two things are one thing, while the one other wouldn't check out if the house analogy were modified to fit the assertion. So the attack of my analogy was false.

Except it wasn't.

Whether or not something is living does matter because I can't for the life of me think of a situation where an "alive" entity is physically connected to a "non-alive" entity in the same way as in a pregnant woman without the non-alive and alive entities being considered the same entity. So, following the logic that "alive entities connected to non-alive entities are one and the same", either the house is living or the person is not.

The house not sharing DNA with the person matters because that seems to be one of the reasons why fetuses are argued to be part of the woman. Additionally, every component of the woman is composed of her DNA, so it could be argued that the person and the house aren't one and the same because the house isn't composed of their DNA (if it is, call the police).

And for the "dependent upon each other" bit, in order to be an independent entity, one must be capable of surviving independently, or at least not be dependent upon one specific entity to survive, no? The fetus, as of right now, is entirely dependent upon one specific entity: the mother. Neither the person nor the house are dependent upon each other, so if the argument is "the fetus is dependent upon the mother" the house comparison missed the mark.

[Antityranicals]

And for the chain bit, imagine that someone was literally physically connected to the house, skin to chain to house, in such a way that the only way the two could be disconnected would be by tearing the skin, or breaking the chain or house. Then what?

If you really want it to be more equivalent, the person would be plumbed into the house for nourishment, and thereby obtain food and water from the house via a tube, and the house would be alive and sentient.

Okay, fine. The person and the house are still two completely different beings, especially given how, to complete the analogy, the person would naturally and healthily become disconnected from the house after a few months.

[Greater Catarapania]

Which is true, and would be considered permissible provided it met the criteria necessary for "double-effect"; i.e., the intent is not to abort the fetus but to save the woman's life. That doesn't mean the fetus is not considered a person or any other diminution of its worth as a human life, of course.

The intent of ESCR is not to kill the zygote but to save lives. So it's still pretty similar.

Do you know what the "Doctrine of Double Effect" Vetalia's referring to even is? Because one of the criteria is that the evil effect (in this case, the destruction of a living human organism) not be the means by which the good effect (in this case, life saving research) is achieved. The two have to be on separate causal paths.

[Salus Maior]

Stem cell research has been surpassed by other forms of research which don't carry the same ethical baggage. Of course, feel free to keep harping on an outdated form of research just to get at "ze Christians".

[Estanglia]

I'm wondering: how does the "not composed of 50% of their DNA" part not show a discrepancy? The biological material of the fetus shares a fairly significant amount of DNA with the mother, whilst the house has literally no DNA to share with someone else.

And if you don't consider that enough of a difference to make the house to mother comparison invalid, well we'll just have to agree to disagree there because it's totally enough for me.

And even in regards to physically chaining someone to a house, you're attached insofar you're touching, but by 'attached' I mean more "physically connected to something to the point that something has to be severed to remove it". Sort of like how our heads are attached to our bodies and in order to separate them you have to sever the neck. To separate me from a house, you just have to physically move me out of the house: no severing is inherently needed.

For the DNA concern, if you assume your argument is valid between fetuses and their mothers, that argument is technically still valid between you and your mother. After all, you haven't somehow ceased to hold the same amount of your mother's DNA. Yet, you are obviously a different person than your mother.

Indeed. But, combined with the other points I made, by my own standard I am sufficiently separate from my mother to not be a part of her.

And for the chain bit, imagine that someone was literally physically connected to the house, skin to chain to house, in such a way that the only way the two could be disconnected would be by tearing the skin, or breaking the chain or house. Then what?

Ignoring the complete impossibility of this situation, then for all intents and purposes the person is part of the house until disconnected.

EDIT: I've contradicted myself here. I've said above that the house not being dependent on the person and vice versa is enough to make them different entities, yet here I've said they're one and the same when that criterion isn't met. For clarification, I am incorrect here, and I still hold the latter.

[Antityranicals]

The intent of ESCR is not to kill the zygote but to save lives. So it's still pretty similar.

Do you know what the "Doctrine of Double Effect" Vetalia's referring to even is? Because one of the criteria is that the evil effect (in this case, the destruction of a living human organism) not be the means by which the good effect (in this case, life saving research) is achieved. The two have to be on separate causal paths.

Especially since the same life-saving research can be attained by harvesting stem cells from adults.

[Vetalia]

The intent of ESCR is not to kill the zygote but to save lives. So it's still pretty similar.

Not really; abortion is permissible to save the woman's life when there is a direct, clear need to do so. It would not be permissible to abort the fetus if there was just a risk of adverse complications or the possibility of maternal death, it has to be a much higher degree of urgency and certitude without any alternative options ensuring the survival of the fetus to meet this criterion of double-effect in moral theology; I can go into more detail if need be but the basic principle is that the good action and the evil action must not be causally related. I.e., the abortion should be an indirect effect of the action necessary to save the woman's life and not the primary reason for the action.

The classic example is an ectopic pregnancy; a similar example in much less drastic circumstances is the use of hormonal birth control to treat legitimately severe medical conditions for which hormonal therapy is effective. As long as these medications are not used with the intent to prevent pregnancy, their use is permitted in these circumstances because the evil action of using contraception is not the intent of the use of this medication. A same principle would apply to other medical procedures that prevent or inhibit the ability to become pregnant (or, alternatively, in the male case to impregnate).

In ESCR, the embryos are being killed for use in research that could theoretically save someone's life in the future or may turn out to be a dead end, which makes it impermissible as it is using means that are morally evil to achieve another outcome, rather than incurring an objectively evil action that is incidental to the other outcome but is not the direct reason for the action which would be permissible under double-effect. Even if it was absolutely certain that use of ESCR in research would produce a cure that could save lives it would still be impermissible because the evil action was the causal agent.

There really isn't any circumstance that could meet the criterion of double-effect in regards to ESCR; the only possible one I can think of would be the use of still-viable cells from an embryo that was aborted to save the woman's life.

[The New California Republic]

If you really want it to be more equivalent, the person would be plumbed into the house for nourishment, and thereby obtain food and water from the house via a tube, and the house would be alive and sentient.

Okay, fine. The person and the house are still two completely different beings, especially given how, to complete the analogy, the person would naturally and healthily become disconnected from the house after a few months.

Except they aren't, as a latter disconnect does not prove a difference in the here and now. If the person's existence from the moment their existence started was being physically plumbed into the house in such a manner as to be totally dependent on it, without an ability to be separated from it lest they die, then they would for all intents and purposes be part of the house.

But this analogy is just fucking ridiculous. It was before, but the amount of bending and twisting it needs to make it remotely equivalent to what we are discussing is obscene.

[Antityranicals]

For the DNA concern, if you assume your argument is valid between fetuses and their mothers, that argument is technically still valid between you and your mother. After all, you haven't somehow ceased to hold the same amount of your mother's DNA. Yet, you are obviously a different person than your mother.

Indeed. But, combined with the other points I made, by my own standard I am sufficiently separate from my mother to not be a part of her.

And for the chain bit, imagine that someone was literally physically connected to the house, skin to chain to house, in such a way that the only way the two could be disconnected would be by tearing the skin, or breaking the chain or house. Then what?

Ignoring the complete impossibility of this situation, then for all intents and purposes the person is part of the house until disconnected.

You know, scientifically speaking, you are technically physically attached to your chair by the force of gravity. The force required to detach yourself from the chair, however, is just far less than the force required to overcome the intermolecular forces which connect the chain to itself. So while you are sitting in a chair, are you part of the chair, or when you are standing on the floor, are you part of the floor?

[The New California Republic]

You know, scientifically speaking, you are technically physically attached to your chair by the force of gravity.

On =/= attached.

[Antityranicals]

Okay, fine. The person and the house are still two completely different beings, especially given how, to complete the analogy, the person would naturally and healthily become disconnected from the house after a few months.

Except they aren't, as a latter disconnect does not prove a difference in the here and now. If the person's existence from the moment their existence started was being physically plumbed into the house in such a manner as to be totally dependent on it, without an ability to be separated from it lest they die, then they would for all intents and purposes be part of the house.

But this analogy is just fucking ridiculous. It was before, but the amount of bending and twisting it needs to make it remotely equivalent to what we are discussing is obscene.

Things are defined by their essence. The essence of an embryo is just as fundamentally different from the essence of his or her mother as the your essence is different than that of your mother. Physical attachment does not homogenize two separate essences.

[Crockerland]

I've no problem with harvesting stem cells from adult body tissue, but to harvest them from embryos is, quite simply, murder.

Murder requires legality. Try again.

Exactly, this is why I keep telling people Pol Pot did NOT murder ANY ONE and was a GREAT GUY.

[Antityranicals]

You know, scientifically speaking, you are technically physically attached to your chair by the force of gravity.

On =/= attached.

True, if there were no force pushing the two objects together. However, there is a force, gravity, keeping the chair and the person together, just as the only reason why it is hard to break a metal chain is because of another force, one stronger than gravity, keeping the molecules of the chain together. The only difference lies in the strength of the force in question.

[Estanglia]

Except they aren't, as a latter disconnect does not prove a difference in the here and now. If the person's existence from the moment their existence started was being physically plumbed into the house in such a manner as to be totally dependent on it, without an ability to be separated from it lest they die, then they would for all intents and purposes be part of the house.

But this analogy is just fucking ridiculous. It was before, but the amount of bending and twisting it needs to make it remotely equivalent to what we are discussing is obscene.

Things are defined by their essence. The essence of an embryo is just as fundamentally different from the essence of his or her mother as the your essence is different than that of your mother. Physical attachment does not homogenize two separate essences.

Define "essence".

Murder requires legality. Try again.

Exactly, this is why I keep telling people Pol Pot did NOT murder ANY ONE and was a GREAT GUY.

"kill" and "genocide" are perfectly valid options.

[The New California Republic]

On =/= attached.

True, if there were no force pushing the two objects together. However, there is a force, gravity, keeping the chair and the person together, just as the only reason why it is hard to break a metal chain is because of another force, one stronger than gravity, keeping the molecules of the chain together. The only difference lies in the strength of the force in question.

Sorry buddy, but it is a real stretch to say that under normal circumstances an object resting on another is "attached" to it, it is not how we would normally conceptualise an object at rest on another object.

[Crockerland]

Things are defined by their essence. The essence of an embryo is just as fundamentally different from the essence of his or her mother as the your essence is different than that of your mother. Physical attachment does not homogenize two separate essences.

Define "essence".

Exactly, this is why I keep telling people Pol Pot did NOT murder ANY ONE and was a GREAT GUY.

"kill" and "genocide" are perfectly valid options.

Both very good descriptors for abortion, too.

[The New California Republic]

"kill" and "genocide" are perfectly valid options.

Both very good descriptors for abortion, too.

Abortion isn't genocide.

[Rojava Free State]

And for the chain bit, imagine that someone was literally physically connected to the house, skin to chain to house, in such a way that the only way the two could be disconnected would be by tearing the skin, or breaking the chain or house. Then what?

If you really want it to be more equivalent, the person would be plumbed into the house for nourishment, and thereby obtain food and water from the house via a tube, and the house would be alive and sentient.

What kind of weird biomechanical horror are you two gabbing about? Jesus Christ I'm gonna have nightmares tonight

[Estanglia]

Define "essence".



"kill" and "genocide" are perfectly valid options.

Both very good descriptors for abortion, too.

"Kill", sure, but for "genocide":

the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.

The only way I can interpret "genocide" to apply to abortion is to discount the second part and to assume that genocide doesn't require any form of organised attempt or intention to stamp out a particular group of people, although by that definition the murder of people in [INSERT LOCATION HERE] would have to be considered a genocide (as it's targeting a particular group of people, those in that location, and largely doesn't have organised effort and an intention to kill off all the people in that area) alongside basically every war in existence if the numbers are sufficient.

[Rojava Free State]

These "overly-zealous individuals" were numerous enough to swing the balance of an election. With no reason to believe religion was the only thing holding even worse forms of zealotry back, what defense is there for the rest of us to support a key, irreplaceable ingredient in that zealotry?

Which election are you talking about?

Historically, Christianity's correlated with some pretty awful other things over these past 2000 years too, but without them happening in democracies Christianity's share in the blame is not as clear-cut.

True, but it also did an enormous amount of good during that same period. This doesn't diminish culpability for the evils committed by Christian churches during their history but even that pales in comparison to the horrific crimes committed by secular ideologies in the 20th century such as fascism and communism.

The issue is authoritarianism of any sort. Ridding the world of institutional religion is not the end all be all. Instead it should be viewed as ridding the world of just one of many tyrannies. I don't believe that any institution should have total control over the lives of others. I wanna live as I desire to and I think others should be able to as well as long as people aren't directly injured or killed because of it. That's why I believe in sex, drugs...and Lil B. Thank you Based God!

[The New California Republic]

If you really want it to be more equivalent, the person would be plumbed into the house for nourishment, and thereby obtain food and water from the house via a tube, and the house would be alive and sentient.

What kind of weird biomechanical horror are you two gabbing about? Jesus Christ I'm gonna have nightmares tonight

Antityranicals was asserting that a fetus in a woman is equivalent to a person in a house. This horror is just me trying to force his ridiculous comparison into being something even remotely equivalent.