Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
... I have yet to see a healthy-looking one ... and most now resort to food supplemements to try and make up for the deficiencies in their diet!!!! Ironically, I have never heard of a Vegetarian having a problem with a Lion eating meat ... yet they have problems with Humans doing so!!!..... so if you want to enjoy your next sirloin steak ... with no qualms of conscience ... and no ethical hypocracy ... you need to be Saved!!!!:eek::D:)
You need to get out more, honey. Vegetarians live longer, you know...less bowel cancer too.
Also, they have the satisfaction of knowing that while a vast swathe of the world starves to death in the dustbowls created by the rampant climate damage inflicted by industrial nations (or owing to the economic decline following colonial stripping), they are not complicit in the destruction of the environment to fulfil the insatiable greed of the fat bloated westerner for his daily double whopper. The UN cites the environmental load of greenhouse gases generated by the livestock industry as higher than that generated by the biggest scapegoat, transportation.
As country-sized tracts of Brazilian rainforest are felled to create cattle plains for fat-guzzling capitalists, incidentally sequestering 10% of the world's water as it goes, I can sit back and know that I have no "qualms of conscience" thank-you very much.0 -
-
Those who hold to the belief that children born with defects are not human, or not fully human, should be kept under surveillance at least. But history tells us they are the ones in power, as the eugenics movement illustrates.doctoremma wrote: »People who understand so little of a standard evolutionary debate that they can easily jump to the premise that children born with defects are not human deserve to be gagged.
It is those who hold to the sanctity of all human life - in the womb and out of it, deformed or normal - that are marginalised. The political and scientific elite see to it.0 -
Those who hold to the belief that children born with defects are not human, or not fully human, should be kept under surveillance at least. But history tells us they are the ones in power, as the eugenics movement illustrates.
It is those who hold to the sanctity of all human life - in the womb and out of it, deformed or normal - that are marginalised. The political and scientific elite see to it.
I hope you're not talking about anyone on this thread, since there is no one on this thread who thinks that a child born with defects is not fully human0 -
Those who hold to the belief that children born with defects are not human, or not fully human, should be kept under surveillance at least. But history tells us they are the ones in power, as the eugenics movement illustrates.
It is those who hold to the sanctity of all human life - in the womb and out of it, deformed or normal - that are marginalised. The political and scientific elite see to it.
What scientific elite are you referring to. If you are referring to evolutionary biologists then your remark is entirely juvenile and insulting.0 -
Advertisement
-
What scientific elite are you referring to. If you are referring to evolutionary biologists then your remark is entirely juvenile and insulting.
In the last few pages, we have seen an assertion that all atheists must agree with "murder"*, that evolutionists call children born with congenital defects non-human and that evolutionists would promote eugenics.
No wonder evolution by this definition disgusts Wolfsbane (and likely JC). Shame they're so far wide of the mark. And you're correct, deeply insulting with it. If someone suggested these things in real life, you could probably have them for slander.
*Quotations not intended to mark my opinion on abortion in any way.0 -
Those who hold to the belief that children born with defects are not human, or not fully human, should be kept under surveillance at least.
You were the one who came to this conclusion.But history tells us they are the ones in power, as the eugenics movement illustrates.
Ironically, the sentiments most closely matching those you might expect from a proponent of eugenics came from yourself (see above). Obviously, they might have matched even more closely had you picked a genetic disorder to discuss in the first place. And then when you changed your mind, used a genetic disorder in the second place, rather than a chromosomal aberration that wouldn't be tractable to a eugenics programme...It is those who hold to the sanctity of all human life - in the womb and out of it, deformed or normal - that are marginalised. The political and scientific elite see to it.
And how dare you suggest that I/we/atheists/scientists somehow don't respect the sanctity of life. All life. This is deeply insulting and my disgust/horror/bit of sick in mouth about the things you say has extended immensely.0 -
... why are you discriminating at all?no, again I'm discriminating on the basis of awareness and sentience and the fact that you have to keep strawmanning to make it look bad speaks volumes
Surely all Humans deserve to live, if at all possible ... and deliberately killing anybody, irrespective of whether they are aware that you are going to kill them is murder!!!:(:(
Such Christians are gravely sinning and breaking the six commanment as well as ignoring Jesus Christ's injunction to love your neighbour as yourself. What can I say only that they are not behaving as Christians and therefore they have a very large question mark over their actual Salvation, which only themselves and Jesus can answer.and yet they do it anyway so your attempt to blame atheism for abortion fails.
True Christianity has no such ambiguity over the dignity of Human life at all stages from conception to old age.
Atheism, on the other hand, has various ambiguities and their ethics are variable and not worth the paper that they're not written on.
For example, some engage in false morality and gross hypocracy when they turn vegetarian to supposedly prevent animals being killed for meat - yet justify the killing of foetal Human Beings for all kinds of morally indefensible reasons!!
...it is like arguing over a gnat (whether you humanely kill and animal for food) and swallowing a Camel (by advocating the killing of the most vulnerable Human Beings by abortion)!!!
... you say that you don't regard Humans as equivalent to animals, but your philosophy is precisely that Humans are just animals ... at the top of the food/intelligence chain ... but just animals nontheless.I don't regard humans as equivalent to animals, I know there's a difference and when I ask myself what those differences are I note that a very early foetus does not possess any of those characteristics. And again, no a sleeping person could not be regarded as being the same as a foetus. More strawmanning and you even gave the name of the other logical fallacy you're using, the slippery slope fallacy.
Indeed, your second statement indicates that you believe that some Human Beings (early foetuses) have no rights at all because you judge them to not to be 'sentient' and 'aware' ... precisely the condition of an adult Human who is asleep or under anaesthesia!!!
... and any argument that sleep and anaesthesia are temporary states of not being 'sentient' or 'aware' are easily countered by the fact that the foetus is also only temporarily not 'sentient' or 'aware' as well !!!
... so animals have more rights than Humans ... and you take the lives of some Humans while you preserve the lives of animals!!!!Sam Vimes
What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Firstly there are millions of vegetarians in the world who live perfectly healthy lives, there are no essential nutrients in meat that you can't get somewhere else and secondly, do you not see the inconsistency with declaring that we see humans and animals as equivalent and then making the remark about lions eating meat as if it's ironic? The reason we have a problem with one and not the other is that we don't see humans and animals as equivalent.
... what an upside down world the Atheist occupies!!!
... when I say that you have no moral basis for eating meat, I mean that you have no consistent and logical 'internal' basis for doing so ... because you believe that you are on roughly the same status level as other animals ... it would be 'specieism' for an Atheist to then advocate the killing of other fellow-animals so to speak!!!Sam Vimes
when you say I have no "moral basis" for eating meat, what you mean is that no authority figure has told me it's ok, allowing me to abdicate responsibility and not think about it myself. The reason I eat meat and think that very early abortions are acceptable is that I have asked myself what the difference between humans and animals is and noted that neither animals nor early foetuses possess the characteristics that make "thou shalt not kill" an important rule to follow. The rule "thou shalt not kill" does not apply to rocks, plants, animals or very early foetuses because, unlike humans, they are not aware and sentient beings (not even ones that have the faculties but are currently not using them)
tThe command from God to not murder was strictly in relation to Human Beings.
... but an Atheist, who doesn't believe in God, has no means of really differentiating between Humans and other animals.
... and because an Atheist knows instinctively that they shouldn't kill Humans, they then feel that they have little option but to apply the command to not killing all animals as well because they regard all animals as on the same moral level, so to speak.
That is why many Atheists are vegetarians.
It is therfore even more ironic when Atheists who are vegetarians, support the killing of only one 'animal' (in their terminology) ... small defenseless Human Beings!!!!:(:(0 -
I thought that we had finished our discussion on Daniel and I was asking where the Theistic Evolutionists had disaappeared to ... because I have been asking them a number of questions on the theological validity of their beilefs for the past week, without any answers forthcoming!!!!I feel dishonest if that's how I'm coming across. This discussion for me is nostalgic, reminding me of before I was atheist.
I was getting warmed up, asked something tricky and that's where the discussion seems to have hit a brick wall.
Either you've encountered a head-wrecking question that the 'holy spirit' won't enlighten you on or this discussion is so beneath you that you've casually encouraged me to seek some sort of Christian intervention.
If the former is the case all I can say is, with horrible irony, "Ah, God love ye."
0 -
It is therfore even more ironic when Atheists who are vegetarians support the killing of only one 'animal' (in their terminology) ... small defenseless Human Beings!!!!:(:(
JC, you need to stop this because you're getting offensive. It is not an "atheist" position to "support" (not the right word) abortion - many different types of people are pro-choice (this is not the same as "pro-abortion", which is a ludicrous position that nobody holds). You yourself have outlined at least one mitigating circumstance where a termination might be acceptable.0 -
Advertisement
-
There's a conflict of rights that has to be resolved. I would rather no abortions ever took place but some women don't want to have a child and they have a right to bodily integrity... why are you discriminating at all?
Surely all Humans deserve to live, if at all possible ... and deliberately killing anybody, irrespective of whether they are aware that you are going to kill them is murder!!!:(:(p
And yet they do it anyway so again, your attempt to blame atheism for abortion fails.such Christians are gravely sinning and breaking the six commanment as well as ignoring Jesus Christ's injunction to love your neighbour as yourself. What can I say only that they are not behaving as Christians and therfore have a very large question mark over their actual Salvation, which only themselves and Jesus can answer.
True Christianity has no such ambiguity over the dignity of Human life at all stages from conception to old age.
They're not based on the unquestionable authority of a book written by a bunch of primitive desert nomads if that's what you mean.Atheism, on the other hand, has various ambiguities and their ethics are variable and not worth the paper that they're not written on.
tbh I'd say that a lot of vegetarians would also be against abortion.Many engage un false morality and gross hypocracy when they turn vegetarian to supposedly prevent animals being killed for meat - yet justify the killing of foetal Human Beings for all kinds of morally indefensible reasons!!...it is like arguing over a gnat (whether you humanely kill and animal for food) and swallowing a Camel (by advocating the killing of the most vulnerable Human Beings by abortion)!!!
There are two kinds of life, animal and plant. We're not plants, therefore we're animals. But we're animals who are self aware and sentient which sets us apart from other animals. We both agree that we're separate from other animals but I consider us separate because I have reasoned it to be so whereas you think it because a book written by primitive desert tribesmen tells you so.... you say that you don't regard Humans as equivalent to animals, but your philosophy is precisely that Humans are just animals ... at the top of the food chain ... but just animals nontheless.
That was a straw man the first time you said it. It remained a straw man the second time you said it and believe it or not it's still a straw man now you've said it for a third timeIndeed, your second statement indicates that you believe that some Human Beings (early foetuses) have no rights at all because you judge them to not to be 'sentient' and 'aware' ... precisely the condition of an adult Human who is asleep or under anaesthesia!!!
No it's not. To use a computer analogy, it's like comparing the data on the hard drive of a computer that's switched off to the metal in a quarry that will one day be used to make a hard drive. They're not the same thing.... and any argument that sleep and anaesthesia are temprary states of not being 'sentient' or 'aware' are easily countered by the fact that the foetus is equally only temporarily not 'sentient' or 'aware' as well !!!
You continue to imply that only atheists get abortions. What a strange world you live in.... so animals have more rights than Humans ... and you take the lives of some Humans while you preserve the lives of animals!!!!
... what an upside down world the Atheist occupies!!!... the command from God to not murder was strictly in relation to Human Beings.
... but an Atheist who doesn't believe in God has no means of really differentiating between Humans and other animals and applies the command into not killing all animals because s/he regards all animals as on the same moral level, so to speak.
It is therfore even more ironic when Atheists who are vegetarians support the killing of only one 'animal' (in their terminology) ... small defenseless Human Beings!!!!:(:(
I have a means of differentiating between animals and human beings, I call it reason, you know the thing you use when you're making a decision instead of abdicating your moral responsibility to an unquestionable authority figure so you don't have to think about it or ever ask if the rules you're following actually make sense?0 -
I thought that we had finished out discussion on Daniel and I was asking where the Theistic Evolutionists had disaappeared to ... because I have been asking them a number of questions on the theological validity of their beilefs for the past week, without any answers forthcoming!!!!
Yer leavin' me hanging JC.:o
Here's one: Jesus loved using analogies to explain concepts as is evident in the Gospels. (And I'd personally agree that it's an extremely effective way of getting points across.)
Perhaps this could be extended to say that Genesis could very well be an analogy of the modern day scientific explanation we have come to realise. After all concepts such as 'CSI' and 'random DNA mutations' etc.. would have gone down like a led balloon for people alive at any time before the twentieth century.
The teaching method of an omnipotent being isn't going to change as it was already as good as it was ever going to be. Therefore JC/God would have always known that analogies were a good way of getting points across.
:cool:0 -
I have no desire to be offensive ... but I would like to know from you, as a vegetarian and an Atheist if you consider abortion to be murder?doctoremma wrote: »JC, you need to stop this because you're getting offensive. It is not an "atheist" position to "support" (not the right word) abortion - many different types of people are pro-choice (this is not the same as "pro-abortion", which is a ludicrous position that nobody holds). You yourself have outlined at least one mitigating circumstance where a termination might be acceptable.
... and if you don't ... how do you morally justify abortion?
... I would also like to point out that the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are effectively one and the same thing.
... to illustrate the point, how would you feel about the following bit of illogicality ... "I am not pro-murder ... but I am pro-choice and therefore I support the man's choice to murder his neighbour"!!!!0 -
concepts such as 'CSI'
This is exactly the reason people post against J C, CSI is a term made up by creationists with no standing in actual science. DrEmma, Sam and Wicknight (to name a few of the 300 :rolleyes: ) only use the term to show how stupid it is.J C wrote:The command from God to not murder was strictly in relation to Human Beings.
Everywhere I look it only says "You shall not kill." (RCC Version) and nothing else, where did you see the addendum that says "... other humans."0 -
This is exactly the reason people post against J C, CSI is a term made up by creationists with no standing in actual science. DrEmma, Sam and Wicknight (to name a few of the 300 ) only use the term to show how stupid it is.
What does it stand for?
I'm assuming it's nothing to do with Horatio Caine.
0 -
-
-
I agree that there is a conflict of rights that must be resolved ... and sometimes the stakes can be very high indeed. I have personal experience of the issues involved and sometimes you would need the 'wisdom of Solemon' to decide where the morally correct course of action lies.There's a conflict of rights that has to be resolved. I would rather no abortions ever took place but some women don't want to have a child and they have a right to bodily integrity
However, it doesn't lie in allowing a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy and it equally doesn't lie in a woman having an abortion because a baby would 'cramp her style'!!!
... I'm not blaming Atheism for abortion ... If you read what I'm saying I'm actually pointing out that abortion should be just as repugnant to an Atheist as to a Christian (but for different reasons)!!!And yet they do it anyway so again, your attempt to blame atheism for abortion fails.
... they should be if they are consistent in their moral positions.tbh I'd say that a lot of vegetarians would also be against abortion.
... but the question I have is are they against Abortion?
... that is my point ... both Atheists and Christians should be opposed to abortion (for different reasons).There are two kinds of life, animal and plant. We're not plants, therefore we're animals. But we're animals who are self aware and sentient which sets us apart from other animals. We both agree that we're separate from other animals but I consider us separate because I have reasoned it to be so whereas you think it because a book written by primitive desert tribesmen tells you so.
the foetus is a Human Being with the disability of not being able to survive outside the uterus ... and because you recoil from advcating the murder of Humans on the basis of disability ... you crawl into the more comforting sounding excuse that the foetus isn't 'sentient' ... which actually gets you nowhere morally ... because you are now advocating the murder of Humans based on whether they are 'sentient' at the time you murder them!!!No it's not. To use a computer analogy, it's like comparing the data on the hard drive of a computer that's switched off to the metal in a quarry that will one day be used to make a hard drive. They're not the same thing.
... and my criticism of this positon as being similar to killing somebody who is not 'sentient' because they are asleep isn't a 'strawman' ... but a perfect parallel to a foetus sleeping in its mothers womb.
I am certainly not arguing such a thing ... I am merely examining the ethical position of Atheists on abortion. The Christians haven't joined in on this discussion, but please believe me that I would be just as clinical in my examination of any points that they might make on this subject!!!!You continue to imply that only atheists get abortions. What a strange world you live in.
... that is what I am trying to determine about YOUR 'rules' ... and so far they don't seem to make sense!!!I have a means of differentiating between animals and human beings, I call it reason, you know the thing you use when you're making a decision instead of abdicating your moral responsibility to an unquestionable authority figure so you don't have to think about it or ever ask if the rules you're following actually make sense?0 -
I have no desire to be offensive ... but I would like to know from you, as a vegetarian and an Atheist if you consider abortion to be murder?
How about asking me as a person if I consider abortion to be murder? I can assure you that my opinion is not affected by or a reflection of my atheism or my vegetarianism.... and if you don't ... how do you morally justify abortion?
It's not about making a moral judgement about whether abortion is right, it's about whether one act is more or less acceptable than the alternative. Think about the word you chose - "justifiable". We generally don't think killing adults is right but some of us accept justification if the adult in question has murdered his wife. You have accepted mitigating circumstances for termination if the woman's life is at risk. So while not making termination a moral act in itself, you are recognising that the "sum" morality isn't only defined by what happens to the child.... I would also like to point out that the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are effectively one and the same thing.
No they're not.0 -
If you read what I'm saying I'm actually pointing out that abortion should be just as repugnant to an Atheist as to a Christian (but for different reasons)!!!
I think this statement is a real shame. If two people agree that abortion is wrong, why on earth should it be for different reasons, based on your skewed stereotyping?
This may surprise you to find out that:
1. Atheists can be human.
2. Christians are only human.
To say "well, they are athiest and that's consistent with their position on x/y/z" is pretty dismissive.0 -
Advertisement
-
The NKJV uses the words 'you shall not murder' (instead of kill) ... but in any event, the ban on killing in the Sixth Commandment was clearly a ban on killing other Human Beings.Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Everywhere I look it only says "You shall not kill." (RCC Version) and nothing else, where did you see the addendum that says "... other humans."0 -
... I wasn't being dismissive ... I was pointing out that Atheists should be against Abortion ... but many don't seem to be.doctoremma wrote: »I think this statement is a real shame. If two people agree that abortion is wrong, why on earth should it be for different reasons, based on your skewed stereotyping?
This may surprise you to find out that:
1. Atheists can be human.
2. Christians are only human.
To say "well, they are athiest and that's consistent with their position on x/y/z" is pretty dismissive.
... and I was pointing out inconsitencies in such a position ... just like I would point out the inconsitencies with a Christian being pro-abortion and still claiming to be a Christian.0 -
... and it may surprise you to learn that Christians can be faced with the very same ethical dilemmas as Atheists!!!doctoremma wrote: »I think this statement is a real shame. If two people agree that abortion is wrong, why on earth should it be for different reasons, based on your skewed stereotyping?
This may surprise you to find out that:
1. Atheists can be human.
2. Christians are only human.
To say "well, they are athiest and that's consistent with their position on x/y/z" is pretty dismissive.0 -
The NKJV uses the words 'you shall not murder' (instead of kill) ... but in any event, the ban on killing in the Sixth Commandment was clearly a ban on killing other Human Beings.
Your church says "Kill".
How is it clearly, If I had a sign that says "No Shooting" on my property, would you say, "He obviously means no shooting foxes, not the rabbits I'm after."?0 -
In your opinion. As you say these are very difficult issues and the morally correct course of action is not always clear. You have decided that a microscopic group of cells that is no more aware than a toe nail is as important as a fully grown woman* but I haven'tI agree that there is a conflict of rights that must be resolved ... and sometimes the stakes can be very high indeed. I have personal experience of the issues involved and sometimes you would need the 'wisdom of Solemon' to decide where the morally correct course of action lies.
However, it doesn't lie in allowing a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy and it equally doesn't lie in a woman having an abortion because a baby would 'cramp her style'!!!
*In fact you haven't really because you support abortion in the case where the woman's life is at risk. Why is her life more important than the foetus'?
Then stop saying things like:... I'm not blaming Atheism for abortion ... If you read what I'm saying I'm actually pointing out that abortion should be just as repugnant to an Atheist as to a Christian (but for different reasons)!!!
...
I am certainly not arguing such a thing ... I am merely examining the ethical position of Atheists on abortion. The Christians haven't joined in on this discussion, but please believe me that I would be just as clinical in my examination of any points that they might make on this subject!!!!
because if atheists are doing it then millions of christians are doing it too.... like I said at the start of this debate today, Atheists are discriminating on the basis of 'disability' when they don't classify procured abortion (where the woman's life isn't in imminent and real danger from the pregnancy) as murder !!!
I dojn't know, I haven't met them all. I do know however from a thread in A&A a while ago that there doesn't seem to be any particular link between atheism and vegetarianism so the inconsistency you talk about would be quite rare.... they should be if they are consistent in their moral positions.
... but the question I have is are they against Abortion?
As I've already said, if a baby was born that had no brain and no consciousness I would have no qualms in allowing it to die. And you have now repeated your sleeping analogy for the fourth time. Do you think if you just keep saying it enough times I'll suddenly accept it as not being a straw man? From your past posts the answer to that question is most likely a very resounding yes. Your analogy fails. As I already said, you are effectively comparing a hard drive full of data in a computer that's currently turned off to some metal deposits in a quarry that will one day be used to make a hard drive. Not the same thing. A foetus is not sleeping because it does not have the capacity to sleep any more than a tulip has the capacity to sleepthe foetus is a Human Being with the disability of not being able to survive outside the uterus ... and because you recoil from advcating the murder of Humans on the basis of disability ... you crawl into the more comforting sounding excuse that the foetus isn't 'sentient' ... which actually gets you nowhere morally ... because you are now advocating the murder of Humans based on whether they are 'sentient' at the time you murder them!!!
... and my criticism of this positon as being similar to killing somebody who is not 'sentient' because they are asleep isn't a 'strawman' ... but a perfect parallel to a foetus sleeping in its mothers womb.... that is what I am trying to determine about YOUR 'rules' ... and so far they don't seem to make sense!!!
Well of course you don't because you think that morality is an argument from authority where reason cannot be applied. I arrived at my position on abortion the same way you arrive at every position you have in your life except the ones associated with your religion: I weighed up the arguments for and against and made a decision. I found both the extreme pro-choice and the extreme pro-life positions to be inconsistent and unjustifiable. The extreme pro-choice says things like "her body her choice" but that argument applies all the way up to birth and no one would suggest that an abortion at 7-8 months is acceptable. The extreme pro-life position says "life begins at conception" but they're faced with the problem that they are saying that something that is not even visible to the naked eye and, as I said, is no more aware than a toe nail should have the same rights as a fully grown woman. But even the most extreme pro-life accepts abortion in some cases so they clearly don't value the foetus the same as the woman despite their claim to the contrary. They also have the problem that they kill and eat animals and the only justification you could give me is "the bible says so", ie an argument from authority, not a rational reason. It was when I realised that both of those positions are inconsistent and unjustifiable that I realised that the best solution is a compromise, one that allows women to have a termination but only in the very earliest stages before the microscopic group of cells develops the capacity to be aware of what's happening. And that J C, whether you agree with me in this case or not, is how you arrive at a moral position without simply doing whatever an authority figure tells you to do.0 -
The NKJV uses the words 'you shall not murder' (instead of kill) ... but in any event, the ban on killing in the Sixth Commandment was clearly a ban on killing other Human Beings.
In fact when it was written it applied only to other Jews. Non-Jews were God's enemies and God regularly instructed the Jews to kill them0 -
... everybodys ethics are intimately tied up with their worldview (unless they are hypocrits).doctoremma wrote: »How about asking me as a person if I consider abortion to be murder? I can assure you that my opinion is not affected by or a reflection of my atheism or my vegetarianism.
Anyway, as a person do you consider induced abortion (where there is no threat to the life of the mother) to be murder?
. I am of course recognising that there are two competing rights here ... the rights of both the mother and the child. Thankfully, as modern medicine has progressed, the situations where the child must be killed to save the mother are getting less. I know of a recent case in my own extended family where a young mother was diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy and was able to undergo treatment for the cancer and her baby was delivered at 7 months completely unharmed by the treatment. We are all praying for this brave woman who is making good progress in fighting this terrible disease.doctoremma wrote: »It's not about making a moral judgement about whether abortion is right, it's about whether one act is more or less acceptable than the alternative. Think about the word you chose - "justifiable". We generally don't think killing adults is right but some of us accept justification if the adult in question has murdered his wife. You have accepted mitigating circumstances for termination if the woman's life is at risk. So while not making termination a moral act in itself, you are recognising that the "sum" morality isn't only defined by what happens to the child.
When it comes to balancing the rights of a baby with its mothers rights, could I point out that the same moral rules can be applied to adult killings of other adults ... who, for example, represent an iminent and real threat to the life of some other adult.
But nobody would use the word 'choice' in such a context. For example, a police marksman who shoots an armed man that is threatening to shoot somebody else would be morally justified in doing so ... but nobody would say that the policeman was exercising his right to choose to kill the gunman. In fact, if the policeman had any other choice of action that would save the lives of both parties he would be expected to do so.
... care to expand???doctoremma wrote: »No they're not.0 -
... her life is more important than the foetus because the foetus will die in any event if the woman dies. Situations where the mother could live until the foetus could be born, but she would then die due to delayed treatment are particularly harrowing ... but there is really only one ethical course of action - and that is to save the mother in such a situation. These are in extremis situations and under these circumstances the relative capacities of the two people involved are an issue - as you cannot save them both.In your opinion. As you say these are very difficult issues and the morally correct course of action is not always clear. You have decided that a microscopic group of cells that is no more aware than a toe nail is as important as a fully grown woman* but I haven't
*In fact you haven't really because you support abortion in the case where the woman's life is at risk. Why is her life more important than the foetus'?
However, in normal situations where both the mother and the baby are no theat to each other, you cannot morally justify killing the baby on the basis of its current state of development.
you are on another dangerous slippery slope here ... where do you draw the line on 'mental capacity'?As I've already said, if a baby was born that had no brain and no consciousness I would have no qualms in allowing it to die.
all standard medical assistance should be provided to all newborn babies ... and if the baby is as seriously disabled as you describe it will still die anyway.
Keeping any Human Being alive while using extraordinary medical intervention over long periods of time is also not ethical as it is not recognising their God-given right to die with dignity and go to a better place to with Jesus Christ who is ultimately far better.
Foetuses do sleep actually.And you have now repeated your sleeping analogy for the fourth time. Do you think if you just keep saying it enough times I'll suddenly accept it as not being a straw man? From your past posts the answer to that question is most likely a very resounding yes. Your analogy fails. As I already said, you are effectively comparing a hard drive full of data in a computer that's currently turned off to some metal deposits in a quarry that will one day be used to make a hard drive. Not the same thing. A foetus is not sleeping because it does not have the capacity to sleep any more than a tulip has the capacity to sleep
and your computer analogy is also incorrect ... a foetus is more akin to a computer 'booting up' ... and if you leave it alone it will open in windows with this page from the Boards.ie ... but if you immerse it in a bucket of water it will 'die' and, as a result, you will unable to meet nice people like Emma and the whole crew on the Boards.ie.0 -
Right so you're talking to me as if I'm evil for suggesting that relative capacities should be taken into account and then you do it yourself.The circumstances in which we discriminate are different but you discriminate nonetheless. You do value the woman over the foetus just as I do.... her life is more important than the foetus because the foetus will die in any event if the woman dies. Situations where the mother could live until the foetus could be born, but she would then die due to delayed treatment are particularly harrowing ... but there is really only one ethical course of action - and that is to save the mother in such a situation. These are in extremis situations and under these circumstances the relative capacities of the two people involved are an issue - as you cannot save them both.
However, in normal situations where both the mother and the baby are no theat to each other, you cannot morally justify killing the baby on the basis of its current state of development.
Another slippery slope logical fallacy. You draw the line where it is reasonable to draw the line.you are on another dangerous slope here ... where do you draw the line?
all reasonable medical assistance should be provided to all newborn babies ... and if the baby is a seriously disabled as you describe it will still die anyway. Equally keeping any Human Being alive while using extraordinary medical intervention over long periods of time is also not ethical as it not recognising their God-given right to die with dignity and go to be with Jesus Christ who is ultimately far better.
Only at a point well beyond when I would consider an abortion acceptable.Foetuses do sleep actually.
No it's not. A computer that's booting up is already fully formed and has all its capacities. A computer booting up is more akin to an adult waking up. A very early foetus is far more accurately compared to the metal deposits in a quarry.and your computer analogy is also incorrect ... a foetus is more akin to a computer 'booting up' ... and if you leave it alone it will open in windows with this page from the Boards.ie ... but if immerse it in a bucket of water it will 'die' and you will never be able to meet nice people like Emma and the whole crew on the Boards.ie.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think that you are morallly wrong to discriminate purely on the basis of capacity/ability. The only situation where capacity enters the equation is where you cannot save both people ... and YOU must decide who lives.Right so you're talking to me as if I'm evil for suggesting that relative capacities should be taken into account and then you do it yourself.The circumstances in which we discriminate are different but you discriminate nonetheless. You do value the woman over the foetus just as I do.
It's akin to you walking along a riverbank and two people fall in and you have only one 'life-buoy' and you must decide who you can save with the buoy ... because you cannot save them both ... so how do you ethically decide who to throw the buoy to???
Capacity undoubtedly enters into it ... but this is an in extremis situation ... and you should save them both if you have two buoys or a boat that is capable of saving them both.
'reasonable' is a bit of a weasel word ... you draw the line by providing standard medical treatment and see what happens ... otherwise you begin to act as God ... which would be a very peculiar position for an Atheist to find himself in!!!!:):DAnother slippery slope logical fallacy. You draw the line where it is reasonable to draw the line.
... and when would that be?Only at a point well beyond when I would consider an abortion acceptable.
a computer booting up is a very appropriate analogy ... as it has the capacity to come fully 'to life' without any further intervention from anybody ... just like a developing foetus.No it's not. A computer that's booting up is already fully formed and has all its capacities. A computer booting up is more akin to an adult waking up. A very early foetus is far more accurately compared to the metal deposits in a quarry.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement