Article: Fetuses in Artificial Wombs: Medical Marvel or Misogynist Malpractice?

[PyramidHead]

Eating meat is not the same thing as saying harming conscious beings is not a problem! So no, that's not the argument I'm making!

Well then, what the hell were you talking about? How is my willingness to kill a cow before I eat it (I assume it's the killing it myself which you have an issue with as opposed to buying it pre-killed at a store that you have a problem with) somehow equivalent to not caring about people in a burning building? You are aware of the context of the statement, so I assume you weren't just taking the one sentence out of context from the paragraph it was in and didn't ignore the next sentence in order to deliberately misunderstand it. Please flesh out the thought process of how you built your argument here.

Your statement made it appear as if your primary problem with e.g. people trapped in a burning building is that human life was at risk, not that there was suffering happening, because harm befalling conscious beings is not a problem by itself. It's only a problem when those conscious beings have a particular genetic composition that classifies them as human. A burning building full of aliens, elephants, or neanderthals would require no action on the part of able-bodied bystanders, from what I understand of your reasoning. If I am wrong, tell me how.

Arbitrary isn't a synoym of random. I think viability is better for all the reasons I've talked about.

I don't remember you giving any reasons, just examples where you repeat your contention that we are obligated to treat all viable human life equally. Why are we obligated to do so, and why should that obligation be taken more seriously than the obligation not to cause suffering?

 

[PyramidHead]

I'd also like to return to dystopian's point about clones. The idea was that according to your prioritization of viable life, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that any biological matter that can develop into a human being (under the right conditions) is given the resources to do so, provided we have the technology and aren't violating anybody's bodily autonomy. That principle leads to some interesting conclusions. Any spontaneously aborted fertilized egg that fails to be rushed to an artificial incubator in time becomes a victim of negligent homicide. Separate sperm and egg cells that are not carefully collected and delivered to an in vitro fertilization clinic become like so many dead soldiers. When the technology develops that would allow genetic information to be duplicated from any cell, viable human lives would be sloughed off by the millions every time you get a haircut. If you don't think these situations follow from your line of reasoning, explain why. And please don't say there's something special about an embryo from a womb because it's the natural way babies develop, because the whole point of this thread is that technology is changing the definition of how babies develop.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well then, what the hell were you talking about? How is my willingness to kill a cow before I eat it (I assume it's the killing it myself which you have an issue with as opposed to buying it pre-killed at a store that you have a problem with) somehow equivalent to not caring about people in a burning building? You are aware of the context of the statement, so I assume you weren't just taking the one sentence out of context from the paragraph it was in and didn't ignore the next sentence in order to deliberately misunderstand it. Please flesh out the thought process of how you built your argument here.

Your statement made it appear as if your primary problem with e.g. people trapped in a burning building is that human life was at risk, not that there was suffering happening, because harm befalling conscious beings is not a problem by itself. It's only a problem when those conscious beings have a particular genetic composition that classifies them as human. A burning building full of aliens, elephants, or neanderthals would require no action on the part of able-bodied bystanders, from what I understand of your reasoning. If I am wrong, tell me how.

Wait ... What? Aliens and neandrathals? Clearly by "human", I meant "moral agent" the same way that it's used in every other discussion about morality that's ever been had in history. The only point I was making is they it doesn't mean cows.

I really don't see how you can so completely miss context.

 

[PyramidHead]

Your statement made it appear as if your primary problem with e.g. people trapped in a burning building is that human life was at risk, not that there was suffering happening, because harm befalling conscious beings is not a problem by itself. It's only a problem when those conscious beings have a particular genetic composition that classifies them as human. A burning building full of aliens, elephants, or neanderthals would require no action on the part of able-bodied bystanders, from what I understand of your reasoning. If I am wrong, tell me how.

Wait ... What? Aliens and neandrathals? Clearly by "human", I meant "moral agent" the same way that it's used in every other discussion about morality that's ever been had in history. The only point I was making is they it doesn't mean cows.

I really don't see how you can so completely miss context.

You seem to have an inflated opinion of your own usage of concepts. Many people (and most moral philosophers) consider self-consciousness and the ability to suffer to be the defining characteristics of a being worthy of moral consideration. Nobody anymore thinks we should restrict our compassion to only moral agents, otherwise severely retarded human beings would be treated no differently than cows. Your idea that only beings capable of forming moral judgments should be treated ethically is certainly historical, but it's on the wrong side of history.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wait ... What? Aliens and neandrathals? Clearly by "human", I meant "moral agent" the same way that it's used in every other discussion about morality that's ever been had in history. The only point I was making is they it doesn't mean cows.

I really don't see how you can so completely miss context.

You seem to have an inflated opinion of your own usage of concepts. Many people (and most moral philosophers) consider self-consciousness and the ability to suffer to be the defining characteristics of a being worthy of moral consideration. Nobody anymore thinks we should restrict our compassion to only moral agents, otherwise severely retarded human beings would be treated no differently than cows. Your idea that only beings capable of forming moral judgments should be treated ethically is certainly historical, but it's on the wrong side of history.

It's just a pet peeve of mine. Whenever there's a discussion about animal rights, some guy always seems to come along and ask "But dude, what about the aliens? Think about them, man. I totally just blew your mind, didn't I?" It's a silly derail from the topic and not a question relevant to the topic.

 

[PyramidHead]

Fair enough, but I think you're inviting that misunderstanding when you say suffering isn't a problem, and human life is what matters. And not all of the non-human examples I gave were moral agents, either. As you say, whatever we found our morals on is up to us, so we can agree to disagree about foundations. But I still think your view leads to some strange conclusions, as I noted in my other post:

I'd also like to return to dystopian's point about clones. The idea was that according to your prioritization of viable life, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that any biological matter that can develop into a human being (under the right conditions) is given the resources to do so, provided we have the technology and aren't violating anybody's bodily autonomy. That principle leads to some interesting conclusions. Any spontaneously aborted fertilized egg that fails to be rushed to an artificial incubator in time becomes a victim of negligent homicide. Separate sperm and egg cells that are not carefully collected and delivered to an in vitro fertilization clinic become like so many dead soldiers. When the technology develops that would allow genetic information to be duplicated from any cell, viable human lives would be sloughed off by the millions every time you get a haircut. If you don't think these situations follow from your line of reasoning, explain why. And please don't say there's something special about an embryo from a womb because it's the natural way babies develop, because the whole point of this thread is that technology is changing the definition of how babies develop.