|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 70 of 254:
| 
Mar 8 10:25 UTC 2006 |
Re #67: No, because even in heaven (and, mind you, Catholics put such beings in
"Limbo" -- between Heaven and Hell, sort of an eternal dull nothingness) people
of that sort wouldn't be able to enjoy heaven to the fullest. If you *knew*
that a person would grow up to choose Hell, it could arguably be better for him
or her to never have been born, but there's no way for human beings to predict
that.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 254:
|
Mar 8 15:35 UTC 2006 |
The Catholics got rid of limbo.
If you put it into a "burning building" scenario then I suppose it means
that, given a choice between rescuing from a fire two people, one a
Christian and one a Buddhist, it would be morally preferable to rescue
the Buddhist because the Christian will go to heaven anyway, while the
Buddhist will not but may yet come to accept Jesus if he lives.
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 254:
|
Mar 8 15:46 UTC 2006 |
re #63 Roberts and Alito are on the Court for life, they have need to worry
about appearances or anything of the like. I think they'll take the case.
|
jep
|
|
response 73 of 254:
|
Mar 8 16:06 UTC 2006 |
re resp:51: I've never been in a burning room containing a young child
and a bunch of blastulas. I don't know why I would be in such
circumstances. I don't know why, if I was, I would be unable to get
both out of the building. And I don't know what any of it has to do
with abortion.
If I were in a burning building containing an assembly of people, I
would prioritize rescuing them in approximately this order:
1) Pregnant woman
2) Child
3) Other woman
4) Helpless man
5) Me
6) test tubes full of "blastulas" (if I knew what that was; I have in
the past, I do today, but there have been gaps; if the test tubes were
labeled "viable human fetuses" it would help me)
7) dog
8) cat
9) cockroach
10) Osama bin Laden
I'd give bonus points to some types of people such as relatives, people
I like, those who can be saved, those who could help me save others,
those with obvious societal merit, and so forth. The real world is
pretty complicated. I like to think I'd try to help everyone I could.
When it comes down to it, it's possible that I'd run away and say to
heck with anyone/anything else. Or panic and die.
|
jep
|
|
response 74 of 254:
|
Mar 8 16:07 UTC 2006 |
re resp:57: I think we are talking moral values here, aren't we?
People do and probably should base their values on their religion, if
they are religious.
|
richard
|
|
response 75 of 254:
|
Mar 8 16:16 UTC 2006 |
re #74 no, people should base their moral values on their *instincts* Basing
moral values on religion is tantamount to saying "base your moral values on
what someone else says" You need to go on instinct, on what you yourself
known instinctively is right or wrong
|
edina
|
|
response 76 of 254:
|
Mar 8 16:41 UTC 2006 |
I never had a lot of formal religious training - it's been slap dash at best.
However, I did notice that I have listened to the soundtrack to "Godspell"
my whole life. If I take my moral guidance from that, is it religious? Is
it broadway?
|
jep
|
|
response 77 of 254:
|
Mar 8 17:07 UTC 2006 |
re resp:75: You mean everyone should shut out whatever others are
saying and come to all of their moral values independently? You
shouldn't start with any kind of moral framework at all? That's what a
religion provides to many people, after all.
I don't find it to be a workable methodology, if that is what you
mean. If it isn't, I don't understand what you do mean.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 254:
|
Mar 8 17:13 UTC 2006 |
We acquire our moral "instincts" throughout life, especially in early years,
from many sources. Those reared in lives constrained by religious doctrine
mostly grow up with narrow concepts of morality. I acquired by moral
"instincts" from both the principles that I was taught and observation of how
life works: but not from "instinct" alone, as that can be too easily mistaken.
|
klg
|
|
response 79 of 254:
|
Mar 8 17:48 UTC 2006 |
1. How many cells are there in a toddler?
2. If human life is continuous and does not necessarily start at
conception, are you saying that it doesn't necessarily stop at death?
And, if so, what does that mean for Robert's and Alito's terms on the
Supreme Court? (Just asking.)
3. It is oxymoronic to say that we acquire instincts after we are born.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 80 of 254:
|
Mar 8 18:28 UTC 2006 |
1. illions
2. Obviously when a cell dies its life has ended. I think you can
extrapolate that to whole persons.
3. Not at all. I wrote "instincts", meaning to imply both innate and acquired
responses. Instincts technically are genetic, but we learn other responses
after birth that might as well be "instincts" for the control they have over
our behavior.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 81 of 254:
|
Mar 8 18:34 UTC 2006 |
klingon is ignorant about buddhism. big sooprize.
|
jep
|
|
response 82 of 254:
|
Mar 8 19:26 UTC 2006 |
re resp:78: What do you mean by "narrow-minded"? How do you
distinguish between "narrow-minded" morals and morals with which you
agree?
I think that all people acquire moral beliefs throughout their lives,
with their most basic beliefs beginning in their youth. All people
have some beliefs that are instilled in them as children by their
parents or other adults, and which will never change. All people have
some beliefs which change through the rest of their lives.
It is possible for anyone to be trained (or come by) reasonable,
workable, useful morals, which collectively I will define as "good".
Anyone can come to have "bad" morals as well (which lack those
characteristics). It is possible for anyone to have good or bad
morals, regardless of their religious background. I am sure all of us
know people from both groups who are good people and also people from
both who are not so good.
|
jep
|
|
response 83 of 254:
|
Mar 8 19:26 UTC 2006 |
(Wow, an abortion item is moving away from abortion. I am not sure
I've seen that happen very often before.)
|
jadecat
|
|
response 84 of 254:
|
Mar 8 19:35 UTC 2006 |
resp:83 well, religion/morality came into it, and that's pretty much the
other stand-by for us. ;)
|
klg
|
|
response 85 of 254:
|
Mar 8 20:13 UTC 2006 |
Curl - Your reply to #2 did not respond to the question.
|
keesan
|
|
response 86 of 254:
|
Mar 8 20:25 UTC 2006 |
John, why would you help a child or a woman before a helpless man?
Conception is the fusing of two living cells to make one living cell with the
same total number of chromosomes. Death is the destruction of one or more
living cells, that need not be independent of other cells (body cells die and
are replaced continuously). Death of an organism is the end of its ability
to function as a unified whole, leading to the death shortly after of all the
individual cells (loss of ability to function and integrity).
|
cyklone
|
|
response 87 of 254:
|
Mar 8 21:46 UTC 2006 |
Re #85: Now if you'd just apply your new-found powers of perception to your
own "answers."
|
tod
|
|
response 88 of 254:
|
Mar 8 22:19 UTC 2006 |
re #58
The piece of your equation that you're missing is the "blame" factor. The
person would save the toddler and then have the blame of the blastulas' deaths
put on the parents through some spin on magic show scriptures gobbledygook.
|
richard
|
|
response 89 of 254:
|
Mar 8 22:33 UTC 2006 |
Those persons who hijacked the jets and flew them into the WTC and the
Pentagon on 9/11 were basing their moral decisions on their religion, on what
they were TOLD BY OTHERS should be their morality. I would argue that if they
had not been religious, if they had developed their morality based on their
own instincts, that they would not have decided to become kamikazes.
|
tod
|
|
response 90 of 254:
|
Mar 8 22:39 UTC 2006 |
Do you believe GW prays before every major decision?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 254:
|
Mar 8 23:29 UTC 2006 |
I think Timothy McVeigh thought up his morality pretty much on his own,
though perhaps with a little encouragement. Can't blame that one on religion.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 92 of 254:
|
Mar 8 23:39 UTC 2006 |
sure you can, HE WAS CATHOLIC!
|
tod
|
|
response 93 of 254:
|
Mar 8 23:46 UTC 2006 |
Turner Diaries and Jolt cola as I understand it.
Plus, it didn't help we buried those fuckers alive and then the VA didn't want
to admit we could get PTSD after that kind of horrendous shit. Believe me,
it had no links to morality being thought up..
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/marine_b/marine_b_refs/n55en071/Testimony_bradf
ord
_0507gulf.htm
|
klg
|
|
response 94 of 254:
|
Mar 9 01:35 UTC 2006 |
So, according to RW's theory, Josef Stalin - despite the millions he had
killed - must have been a very moral person, inasmuch as he was an
athiest and all.
|