What's wrong with having a moral component to politics? If political leaders decide on moral issues (and they do) what is wrong with considering morality when making those decisions? Seems to be common sense to me.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Oh God No! The beginning of the end for sensible politics in the UK?
Collapse
X
-
what is wrong with considering morality when making those decisions? Seems to be common sense to me."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whaleboy
All of which assumes that the abortion (the foetus is the "one" upon whom you suppose is having morality forced) is killing a person as opposed to a bunch of cells that we kill in our daily lives all the time. You have yet to make that point, but your argument is built on it. We are attacking that assumption, you are not defending it. Merely restating your argument does not make it so.
I do claim fetus is more than a bunch of cells. A bunch of cells do not have an ability of growing into an adult human being.
I do not presume it, I conclude it.
Cognitive capacity, a functioning nervous and cerebral system to aid communication (demonstrable or known consciousness) are ways to tell that exist.
Do You have to have all 3 of that? There are people who do not.
They don't go into metaphysical religious bull**** like the "soul" that in reality means nothing here
But I do not mention soul. You do. And do not call it bull****. It's rude.
What if I have a nosebleed? Is the contents of my tissue a human?
What if you're unconscious and unable to feel pain? Are you human?
What if you've had brain damage and can't dream... are you a human?
What if you are deaf? Does that mean you are suddenly less human?
It's about having potential of all or most of it.
A bunch of embryonic cells are incapable of feeling pain, have no cerebrum in which to dream, and cannot sense as we do.
Your definitions just don't hold water.
In your example, no. But can an embryo be compared to a human adult? Of course not! It'd be more like flushing the toilet in Nazi-occupied Paris.
All of which *again* rests upon the assumption that the foetus is a child, which is the very assumption that is under attack but you are providing no evidence for it. You have thus far failed to show how it is a child and the burden of proof is now on you to do so.
No it isn't. In a society where the state and the church are separate, the law exists to maintain equilibrium in society and prevent harm, morality is presumed to be more individualistic and subjective, hence why atheistic societies are usually more libertarian than theocracies... consider the modern UK as opposed to Saudi Arabia or Inquisition-era Spain. Obvious exception to that is the USSR for numerous reason but that's another story.
Morality is in general about distinguishing good and evil.
Any distinguishing in between them is morality.
Law distinguish right from wrong, therefore it's morality.
To support my opinion, Wikipedia:
"Morality is a complex of principles (...) by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong."
a contraversial procedure performed in clean, safe, clinical environments by professionals with counselling and support afterwards, or some failed med student from Albania in a dusty back room with a coat hanger. Tough call."I realise I hold the key to freedom,
I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
Middle East!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sava
adults have a soul... an unthinking mass of cells, or fetus, does not."I realise I hold the key to freedom,
I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
Middle East!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Heresson
Who are You to judge who has soul and who does not?
Even the bible says life does not start until you breath your first breath. IIRC, you need to be born to do that. And even in those times, infanticide was quite prevelant and common. Infanticide is mentioned in the Bible.To us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
A bunch of cells do not have an ability of growing into an adult human being.
Then, I conclude it is a person.
Yes. A fetus has all that, perhaps but consciousness, but isn't unconscious person a person?
But I do not mention soul. You do. And do not call it bull****. It's rude.
n.
1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
Religion is something wortheless, deceptive and insincere, methinks bull**** is a good term. Autocensor doesn't seem to mind, we're all good!
Have You ever seen an unconscious deaf tissue with brain damage?
It's about having potential of all or most of it.
we're not able to know exactly where a human being starts, so we should protect life from the very beginning.
See above. You've imputed me some views I do not hold.
Fetus can be compared to an adult, even 5-cell one, for that matter. And **** is not alive.
Bah, You wish so. You do not accept my explenations why fetus is a child, but it's the same situation on my side. The burden of proof is on both sides.
You do not get my point. "Preventing harm". How can we now someone's been harmed?
Morality is in general about distinguishing good and evil.
Any distinguishing in between them is morality.
Law distinguish right from wrong, therefore it's morality.
To support my opinion, Wikipedia:
"Morality is a complex of principles (...) by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong."
Indeed, it is not. Both procedures are as evil."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whaleboy
What relevance does the ability have to the argument proposing that foetus at that given time can be aborted? That falls to the same problem of semen and eggs.
But eggs that we are eating are at a specific stadium,
when the chicken inside it is not yet present in any form resembling an adult chicken.
You can't because you've provided no argument to that end. You are assuming it is true, you aren't trying to explain, and thus conclude why so. The two are completely different.
A foetus has cognitive capacity (intelligence) and a functioning nervous and cerebral system and demonstrable consciousness? Hardly. The only human lifeforms that *don't* are those that are brain dead, clinically dead, or foetuses up to a certain point.
Also, if You accept that there's a little difference between a fetus 1 day before the birth and one day after, where's the boarder according to You?
Religion is something wortheless, deceptive and insincere, methinks bull**** is a good term. Autocensor doesn't seem to mind, we're all good!
Why is potential so important, other than it being the only possibly recourse of any hope for your argument?
You have to deal with the foetus as it is, not what it might be.
Lets put it this way: If You treat a serie murderer as He is, You should kill him. But You should treat him minding what He might become, and resocialise him.
If You have a seed of a flower, You do not think about it as it is, You think of it as of a potential. Otherwise, You shoud throw it away, for what's the use of some brown stinking little clod?
I grant you that we don't know when the brain achieves consciousness, but we can tell fairly sure when a foetus is certainly not a person, shall we say, a 3/4 week old foetus is perfectly safe to abort.
However, I have respect for view that's defending human life from the beginning.
You're talking about potential, I took that and showed it to be an absurd definition.
Anyway, yes, it can be overdone up to protecting of sperm. There's no virtue that can not be turned into a fault. The question is where should we put the line.
Our definition is about the same, the one of CC is 3-4 weeks earlier, that's not much
Repeating yourself won't validate your argument.
No, seriously I was not repeating myself.
No it isn't. You have simply said that it is and provided some easily refuted half-assed reasons. I have given you an argument that you have barely dealt with at all, the burden of proof is solely on you at this stage. I will not accept your conclusion that a foetus is not a child because your argument for that is weak. This isn't a matter of not listening to your opinion.
Well, our views aren't really contradictory. I think that forming of a brain is the beginning of personality.
CC claims it's conception. I could defend their opinion,
and I in fact did: when we do not know the exact point, we're taking the earliest possible one.
In that discussion, the question of personality is irrelevant, though.
No, morality is about defining what one should or shouldn't do.
Law: Killing is forbidden.
It's a difference between theory and practice.
Notice that God in fact sent us 10 commandements in a form of laws: Thou shall not kill.
Some advanced moral systems account for the problem of "lesser evils". I emphasise moral systems, because there are numerous ones that contradict, some including myself would have them as individual as each of us. The law on the other hand distinguishes between what is and isn't acceptable in the society... law and morality, they're not the same thing. One is contextual, one is supposedly universal, and the latter is too variant to use consistently anyway.
Law is an eclectic morality composition. That it may change is irrelevant - You're just changing the morality you're using in that specific part of law.
I do not claim law is an universal morality. It's attempt of executing morality.
Often they conflict... it may be moral to steal to support your starving children, but it isn't legal...
and it is not possible to avoid it in practice.
effectively you have just repeated yourself again.
Again you show me no reason why this is so
, nor have you stated which moral system you are using here (and thus enabled me to counter it). Suppose for a second that the foetus is a person, or that the question has not been settled. Surely the option that results in less suffering for people like the mother and reduces the risk of disease/infection, is inherently less "evil" by any measure than the coathanger option no?
"I realise I hold the key to freedom,
I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
Middle East!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sava
it's not a matter of judgement... it's fact. fetuses don't have developed brains...
Even the bible says life does not start until you breath your first breath.
IIRC, you need to be born to do that.
And even in those times, infanticide was quite prevelant and common. Infanticide is mentioned in the Bible."I realise I hold the key to freedom,
I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
Middle East!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Heresson
You do not. Breathing is not about opening mouth and catching air, it's about using oxygen, and child does it.
sorry you loseTo us, it is the BEAST.
Comment
-
Perhaps if people had eggs.
But eggs that we are eating are at a specific stadium,
when the chicken inside it is not yet present in any form resembling an adult chicken.
I'm providing arguments, but You disagree with them, just as I'm disagreeing with your "arguments"
Sorry, You've written it in a pretty blurry way. What were You trying to prove exactly?
Also, if You accept that there's a little difference between a fetus 1 day before the birth and one day after, where's the boarder according to You?
Religion is not worthless. It's given us wonderful art, it's given us philosophy and science, it gives us meaning of life. Is it deceiptive? Depends if You believe it's true or not. Insincere? Are You kidding? Whatever You say, it's hard to believe that Jesus, St Paul or even some medieval pope were intentionally misleading people.
It is not.
Who says so? You?
If You have a seed of a flower, You do not think about it as it is, You think of it as of a potential.
However, I have respect for view that's defending human life from the beginning.
Anyway, yes, it can be overdone up to protecting of sperm. There's no virtue that can not be turned into a fault. The question is where should we put the line.
To me, put the line where it lies in fact, not fantasy. If science can one day provide a solid definition of lifeform and person based on valid definitions then great, however all we have now are relatively sound definitions (See above) and guesswork so I think one should play it safe. Allow abortions early in the term but disallow them after perhaps 10/12/16 weeks (others would be in a better position to quote specifics).
No, seriously I was not repeating myself.
Well, our views aren't really contradictory. I think that forming of a brain is the beginning of personality.
CC claims it's conception. I could defend their opinion,
and I in fact did: when we do not know the exact point, we're taking the earliest possible one.
In that discussion, the question of personality is irrelevant, though.
Morality: Killing is bad.
Law: Killing is forbidden.
It's a difference between theory and practice.
Notice that God in fact sent us 10 commandements in a form of laws: Thou shall not kill.
The cathegory of "lesser evils" admits existance of good and evil. If we should do something, it must be good, or at least closer to the good than the other option.
Law is an eclectic morality composition. That it may change is irrelevant - You're just changing the morality you're using in that specific part of law.
I do not claim law is an universal morality. It's attempt of executing morality.
You'll note of course that the problems of drawing a legal line to reflect scientific fact is not a moral problem, it is subject to science and reason more than anything, hence the "play it safe" element. None of this of course helps to settle the question of whether a foetus is a lifeform or a person, which is the crux of our two positions, since the CC holds the human lifeform to be also a person at conception.
Bah, it's not a conflict of morality and law. It's a conflict between one of the morality commandements and other,
and it is not possible to avoid it in practice.
Just like yourself. You've "refuted" my points by repeating that fetusi are not persons
Killing the mother during the operation would spare her not only that suffering, but also all the next possible suffering
Ony to a point.
it's about using oxygen, and child does it
So is war."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
Comment