However the hypothetical isn’t fair or emotion neutral enough to make the claim you do in the final sentence. [/quote]
I disagree – I think it means exactly what V said. But if the hypothetical is simply too tainted by the commendable bias of your being a loving family man, you can abstract it: You are making the same choice, but the people in question – the mother, 5-year-old, and zygote – are all strangers to you.
If you would still choose the pill over the death of the 5-year-old – as I’m close to certain you would – then you believe the latter’s life to be more valuable than the former’s. Perhaps, even, you believe the latter (and not the former) to be fully a person.[/quote]
I agree with the first line of reasoning but not the second. He has no idea that that fetus or whatever will survive and live to be 5 yrs,he does know this about his daughter. Its not worth taking the chance. Plus the bonding and loving the kid and all
Or would you find a way to stabilise their population in some other way?
[/quote]
I can’t compare pigeons to people, I just can’t.
So, let’s try it this way:
How do you suppose we effectively deal with the overpopulation problem? Is there a way to do so without utterly destroying the freedom of the common person?[/quote]
Sure. It’s called the empowerment of women, and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.
A conscious choice to have fewer babies (not by increasing abortions, but by reducing conceptions) means decreased population growth, which means reduced poverty, which means MORE freedom.
But name me one religion whose missionaries preach THIS gospel.
However the hypothetical isn’t fair or emotion neutral enough to make the claim you do in the final sentence. [/quote]
I disagree – I think it means exactly what V said. But if the hypothetical is simply too tainted by the commendable bias of your being a loving family man, you can abstract it: You are making the same choice, but the people in question – the mother, 5-year-old, and zygote – are all strangers to you.
If you would still choose the pill over the death of the 5-year-old – as I’m close to certain you would – then you believe the latter’s life to be more valuable than the former’s. Perhaps, even, you believe the latter (and not the former) to be fully a person.[/quote]
I agree with the first line of reasoning but not the second. He has no idea that that fetus or whatever will survive and live to be 5 yrs,he does know this about his daughter. Its not worth taking the chance. Plus the bonding and loving the kid and all[/quote]
Right, the result of which is that one is more valuable than the other, this necessarily being what you’re affirming when you choose between the destruction of one thing and the destruction of another.
However the hypothetical isn’t fair or emotion neutral enough to make the claim you do in the final sentence. [/quote]
I disagree – I think it means exactly what V said. But if the hypothetical is simply too tainted by the commendable bias of your being a loving family man, you can abstract it: You are making the same choice, but the people in question – the mother, 5-year-old, and zygote – are all strangers to you.
If you would still choose the pill over the death of the 5-year-old – as I’m close to certain you would – then you believe the latter’s life to be more valuable than the former’s. Perhaps, even, you believe the latter (and not the former) to be fully a person.[/quote]
I agree with the first line of reasoning but not the second. He has no idea that that fetus or whatever will survive and live to be 5 yrs,he does know this about his daughter. Its not worth taking the chance. Plus the bonding and loving the kid and all[/quote]
Right, the result of which is that one is more valuable than the other, this necessarily being what you’re affirming when you choose between the destruction of one thing and the destruction of another.[/quote]
I have a QUESTION, Should laws define our morality OR should morality define our laws?
[/quote]
Ideally the law should reflect the common morality of the people for whom it is written.
The reason that much of Levitical law no longer applies is because we no longer consider many of the things proscribed to be immoral, and no longer consider many of the things commanded to be moral.
Sodomy laws have been overturned in all states of the Union, as have laws against miscegenation. Slavery, which was once commonplace throughout the world, and entirely legal, is now illegal precisely because it has come to be thought of as immoral.
When the majority of people in the United States come to view abortion as immoral, then it will become illegal.
Just as it is now in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran.
However the hypothetical isn’t fair or emotion neutral enough to make the claim you do in the final sentence. [/quote]
I disagree – I think it means exactly what V said. But if the hypothetical is simply too tainted by the commendable bias of your being a loving family man, you can abstract it: You are making the same choice, but the people in question – the mother, 5-year-old, and embryo – are all strangers to you.
If you would still choose the death of the embryo over the death of the 5-year-old – as I’m close to certain you would – then you believe the latter’s life to be more valuable than the former’s. Perhaps, even, you believe the latter (and not the former) to be fully a person.[/quote]
I think that the vast majority of people would make the same choice Beans made. I know I would and for me its not even a close call. If we all really and truly believed that the two live humans at issue were actually on equal footing, and that the embryo was entitled to full rights of personhood, I personally think you would need to flip a coin to make the decision. But there is no way I would let a coin make that decision; like a zero percent chance I would let a coin make that decision.
This doesn’t suggest or prove that it is desirable to kill unborn fetuses or embryos; that they aren’t alive; or that they aren’t biologically “human,” only that the line isn’t as clear and bright on the issue of granting full rights of personhood at conception rather than at some later point that some claim it is.
If you would still choose the death of the embryo over the death of the 5-year-old – as I’m close to certain you would – [/quote]
I would.
Sure, but at this point it is purely a matter of statistics more than anything. Which one has a better survival rate, which one contributes more to the herd this instant…
I mean, this is horrid, despicable shit I’m talking about here, and I’m sort of ashamed I am… But, just because I pick the 5 year old, doesn’t make the baby meaningless, valueless or not a person.
No, I’m making a morally repugnant business decision about which asset is currently more likely to provide a ROI.
I am NOT trying get into a debate about something else ; ) Do you understand why the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to birth control?
All birth control is abortifacient, except the barriers like condoms or diaphragms. When a birth control fails, do you believe the couple will raise and care for the child? I can only presume abortion will most likely follow because the couple does not want a child, hence taking birth control. Another tenant is because birth control is a man-made barrier into a natural act that is meant to result in life. The natural world is very different than the human world but that is a topic for another thread.
By definition, birth control aborts the newly conceived human. Birth control does not allow the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. I have equated birth control to murder because I see no difference. Please provide evidence of your position about how the position of the science supporting the Catholic position is wrong. Remember to provide a source with the same criteria you asked of me ; )
[quote]Aragorn wrote: First, this is the ROMAN CATHOLIC church. Not the “Church”. There are literally millions of people that don’t agree with the ROMAN CATHOLIC’s stance, so that is an invalid generalization…AGAIN.
Second, this opinion of the Pope’s is massively massively flawed in my view, but he does not equate that they are both “murder”. He equates them as morally wrong (again, although I shouldn’t need to mention this considering my opposition to kneedragger in many previous threads, I DO NOT agree with the Pope’s stance whatsoever). There is a difference, and it is significant. [/quote]