|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 61 of 254:
| 
Mar 8 01:22 UTC 2006 |
But if were a question of embryos and a toddler, I guess it would depend
on how long I would have to entertain the toddler afterwards.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 62 of 254:
|
Mar 8 02:04 UTC 2006 |
#57: "We should be talking facts here" -- so give us the universally agreed
fact of when personhood begins, please!
Citing a religious example of one viewpoint is extremely relevant, since it
demonstrates one particular group of people's view of when personhood begins.
|
gull
|
|
response 63 of 254:
|
Mar 8 02:24 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:0: I think the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case.
Simple math says that neither side can be sure they have the votes to
settle the issue in their favor, and I also suspect Roberts and Alito
want to avoid the appearance of giving political payback to Bush, so I
think they'll decline to open this can of worms right now.
Re resp:50: I think it has to suck for all those unbaptized fertilized
eggs that end up going to Hell. Dozens of them for every successful
pregnancy, probably, since that's the way the human body seems to work.
Yup, that's a loving God for you.
|
keesan
|
|
response 64 of 254:
|
Mar 8 03:09 UTC 2006 |
I read that it is 50 to 90% of the fertilized eggs that don't develop properly
and get miscarried, or probably more because often more than one egg is
ovulated and fertilized, and if they both survive you get twin. In the case
of IVF, the proportion is lower.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 65 of 254:
|
Mar 8 03:13 UTC 2006 |
Re #63, par 2:
The standard (Protestant) Christian understanding is that those who have never
had sufficient mental capacity to understand the gospel go to heaven. (Those
with severe mental disabilities, for example. And this is also used in popular
sermons on "your pets will be in heaven with you.") If we define personhood
based on mental capacity I don't see how we can avoid making "murder of a
mentally disabled human being" a contradiction in terms.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 66 of 254:
|
Mar 8 03:19 UTC 2006 |
>The question is, do they really believe this? Is this belief reflected
>in all of their moral choices, or only when they find it convenient?
That's pretty much where I was headed. If "fetus" literally equals
"young child", and "abortion" equals "murder", then the anti-abortion
movement strikes me as rather half-assed. Shouldn't so-called "clinics"
where children are quite literally murdered on a daily basis be burned
to the ground? Shouldn't mothers who have their children killed be sent
to prison for life (along with parents and friends who assist them)?
Shouldn't "doctors" who murder children by ripping them to pieces get
the death penalty?
I suspect "life begins at conception" and "abortion is murder" are
little more than a way of avoiding difficult arguments--when does a
fetus become a person? is a potential person as deserving of protection
as an actual person? when should the needs of a fetus outweigh the
needs of its mother?--by turning a grey area into a black/white one.
grey area into a black/white one.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 67 of 254:
|
Mar 8 04:00 UTC 2006 |
re #65: If you really believed that, wouldn't aborting a fetus be an
act of love?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 68 of 254:
|
Mar 8 04:16 UTC 2006 |
In Michigan, if you assault a woman and cause her to have a miscarriage,
you go to jail for life.
|
drew
|
|
response 69 of 254:
|
Mar 8 06:41 UTC 2006 |
Re #49:
Life begins at erection.
|
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.
|