These are all questions of ownership, not morality. Arbitration of ownership disputes are something that the government very much does have a monopoly on.
So you don't believe stealing is a matter of morality? Then why does the government regulate ownership? Because people have realized that stealing is morally wrong and unacceptable. People have a moral right to retain their property without interference.
But, for the sake of discussion, let's say it is a matter of ownership. The government regulates ownership, humans own their own lives, the unborn are human, therefore the government regulates, supports, and protects their right to life.
Here is the thing about moral codes: individuals subscribe to them according to their own beliefs. The government has no business legislating them. If christians of various flavors have a problem with stem cell research, they are free to refuse treatments based on it.
Do you really believe "The government has no business legislating [moral codes]"? Does that mean that you won't care if someone kidnaps your children, hacks into your back accounts and empties them out, steals your car, and backs a moving van up to your home and empties it?
Some people believe that the government's job is to help protect its people--all its people, including the unborn. Abortion and creating embryos (human lives) for the purpose of using their parts are morally wrong and the government would be remiss in not prohibiting them.
Actually, a sperm requires an egg cell (or an egg cell requires a sperm cell if you wish) to constitute an embryo which I define as the least developed form of human being. A sperm cell, by itself, is incapable of growing becoming an embryo.
We recognize many steps along the road to personhood out of necessity, we could not live at all otherwise. A steak is not a person, a sperm is not a person, a fertilized egg is not a person, a blob of cells with no brain is not a person, a born baby is a person, a child is a person, an adult is a person, an elderly adult is a person, a corpse is not a person, fertilized land is not a person, cow feed is not a person, a cow is not a person, a steak is not a person.
What you are describing are stages of maturity, not personhood. It is possible to be a person yet not be a mature person. A sperm cell is not a human being because it lacks the potential to grow and mature any further. An embryo has this potential. It is a person. It is an undeveloped person-- but it is a person. A seed is not a tree, but it will be a tree--unless it is killed. To kill the seed is to kill the tree that will be. To kill the child as embryo is to kill the child that will be. The only question is, "Will we allow it to have the same opportunity for growth that we had?" Furthermore, there is more to being a person than biological processes or lack thereof. My Christian faith (which I know you don't share) recognizes that personhood continues even after physical death.
As far as hate speech goes, I do not need a lot of imagination to forsse a time when criticism of certain lifestyles is termed "hate speech" and prosecuted as such even though it does not advocate killing or harming members of another group.
Well, I dispute your characterization of Christianity as oppressive. And I could argue ways in which your life and mine both would be much poorer for the lack of influence of Christianity on our culture-- I assume you are an American(but such a discussion would take us far off-topic). It seems to me that any society that fails to recognize the value of human life risks itself being characterized as oppressive. I wonder if unborn children had their own voice in these matters if they would call Christians(or others) who favor their right to life as "oppressive." It seems to me that forcible termination of an unborn child is "oppressive."
Yes, as you point out, there are opportunities to influence universities. But as US citizens, we are entitled under the Constitution to freedom of speech and the right to vote. Personally, I do not believe the Republican party is the hope of America. Christianity cannot be identified with any particular party. Government does not change human hearts-- only God can. With that said, the citizens of a given country should work for its good, and for me, the good of our country is to respect the unborn.
It seems to me that a utilitarian ethic which values human life according to its "usefulness" holds strong promise to bring about another set of Dark Ages. When we begin to look at human life as a vehicle for research which then can be discarded, it sets a dangerous precedent. Perhaps not now, but at a later time, some group might say, "Well, this group isn't really contributing very much-- couldn't they be eliminated? Wouldn't it benefit the majority?" Only a society that truly values and protects its weakest members (whether they are the unborn or the elderly) can truly be called "enlightened." An abundance of knowledge and scientific technique is not enlightenment-- the wisdom to use knowledge and science in a compassionate way that benefits all people--including the unborn--only that can be called true education and learning.
Equally unfortunately, a billion dumb people can all be equally wrong, and in a democracy they can rule over a small minority of smart people.
I believe in education, but I really don't believe that intelligence is the most important part of leadership. If I had to choose between someone who really loved me and had my best interests at heart and someone who had a Ph.d, but whom I didn't trust-- I would pick the "dumb person" every time. "Smart" people have done a lot of evil in this world. The present Chinese leadership could be called, "smart," but I daresay you would not want to live under their leadership.
As far as the Muslims are concerned, perhaps I will suffer under shariah law one day. But I see a far greater threat to my well being from another source-- a source that defines disagreement with its principles as "hate speech." At present I find much more probably of enduring imprisionment by these forces than the Muslims.
I think most liberals would just like to let scientists do their jobs, holding to the ethical codes required by their grants and their universities. I think only the Republican side ties this issue to abortion. Since our side doesn't even think that such research rises to the level of abortion, it's a non-issue for us.
I for one would like some imput into the "ethical codes required by their grants and universities." Yes, I want scientists to do their jobs. But I see the job of a scientist as that of benefitting humanity-- all of humanity-- not part of humanity at the expense of another-- the unborn. I approach this subject not as a Republican, but as a Christian (the two are not synonymous).
Are these hypothetical children you're talking about being killed so that their organs can be harvested? And these hypothetical persons whose relatives are making decisions regarding the final disposition of their organ, were they killed so that they're organs could be harvested? No, they are not. I am not talking about people whose desires for what is done with their bodies after death are not being honored. I am talking about persons who are being killed for their organs and or cells. This is entirely two different things. It's one thing not to honor a person's desires for their remains after death; it's entirely another matter to kill them for their organs.
Well, it is kind of hard to believe that when people go to all kinds of trouble to hack into web servers to deface web pages, they won't avail themselves of the opportunity to do it much more easily. Perhaps they do need to change the policy to where editorial rights are restricted until a person becomes more of a "known quantity."
Hypothetical question: what happens if one day they discover a therapy that will cure MS? The problem is that it requires the pituatary glands of 70 year old humans? Will we then say, "Well, these people have lived most of their lives already, they are of little further "usefulness," so why not harvest what we need? Could anyone see this happening?
Well, I base my distinction upon the teachings of the Bible, so it is obvious where we part ways to me. I'm not going to get into a discussion of differences/similarities based on physical characteristics or even mental abilities of humans versus animals. Humans and animals are different because humans have an eternal soul. They are made in God's image. As far as hate speech is concerned, you are making a connection which isn't there. Animals belong to species; humans belong to races.
A spontaneous abortion is just that "spontaneous." A regular abortion is done because someone decides to do it. That is a moral choice. As far as God's involvement in this, I do believe God is in control. However, I would rather have Him making these kinds of decisions rather than humans. I mean no disrespect by this.
Please remember that I am not the one who made the "Mengele" comment. However, didn't you say that you wouldn't draw any lines? Are you now saying that there are lines you wouldn't cross?
Well, actually, the embryo is a person according to my beliefs.
We are coming at this issue from two different directions. Because of my Christian beliefs, I believe that there are things more important than maintaining physical life. I believe there is a God to whom we are accountable. To me, quality of life is more than just our ability to think, eat, sleep, procreate, etc. It is the quality of the decisions and life we live.
Because of this, a "ends justifies the means" pragmatism is not viable.
Thank you for your honesty. Do you see a set of circumstances where the lives of what you would describe as human beings should be cut short for a "greater purpose"?
Slashdot Mirror
So you don't believe stealing is a matter of morality? Then why does the government regulate ownership? Because people have realized that stealing is morally wrong and unacceptable. People have a moral right to retain their property without interference.
But, for the sake of discussion, let's say it is a matter of ownership. The government regulates ownership, humans own their own lives, the unborn are human, therefore the government regulates, supports, and protects their right to life.
Also, could you explain to me how a steak grows and matures?
Actually, a sperm requires an egg cell (or an egg cell requires a sperm cell if you wish) to constitute an embryo which I define as the least developed form of human being. A sperm cell, by itself, is incapable of growing becoming an embryo.
Well, I dispute your characterization of Christianity as oppressive. And I could argue ways in which your life and mine both would be much poorer for the lack of influence of Christianity on our culture-- I assume you are an American(but such a discussion would take us far off-topic). It seems to me that any society that fails to recognize the value of human life risks itself being characterized as oppressive. I wonder if unborn children had their own voice in these matters if they would call Christians(or others) who favor their right to life as "oppressive." It seems to me that forcible termination of an unborn child is "oppressive."
Yes, as you point out, there are opportunities to influence universities. But as US citizens, we are entitled under the Constitution to freedom of speech and the right to vote. Personally, I do not believe the Republican party is the hope of America. Christianity cannot be identified with any particular party. Government does not change human hearts-- only God can. With that said, the citizens of a given country should work for its good, and for me, the good of our country is to respect the unborn.
It seems to me that a utilitarian ethic which values human life according to its "usefulness" holds strong promise to bring about another set of Dark Ages. When we begin to look at human life as a vehicle for research which then can be discarded, it sets a dangerous precedent. Perhaps not now, but at a later time, some group might say, "Well, this group isn't really contributing very much-- couldn't they be eliminated? Wouldn't it benefit the majority?" Only a society that truly values and protects its weakest members (whether they are the unborn or the elderly) can truly be called "enlightened." An abundance of knowledge and scientific technique is not enlightenment-- the wisdom to use knowledge and science in a compassionate way that benefits all people--including the unborn--only that can be called true education and learning.
I believe in education, but I really don't believe that intelligence is the most important part of leadership. If I had to choose between someone who really loved me and had my best interests at heart and someone who had a Ph.d, but whom I didn't trust-- I would pick the "dumb person" every time. "Smart" people have done a lot of evil in this world. The present Chinese leadership could be called, "smart," but I daresay you would not want to live under their leadership.
As far as the Muslims are concerned, perhaps I will suffer under shariah law one day. But I see a far greater threat to my well being from another source-- a source that defines disagreement with its principles as "hate speech." At present I find much more probably of enduring imprisionment by these forces than the Muslims.
Are these hypothetical children you're talking about being killed so that their organs can be harvested? And these hypothetical persons whose relatives are making decisions regarding the final disposition of their organ, were they killed so that they're organs could be harvested? No, they are not. I am not talking about people whose desires for what is done with their bodies after death are not being honored. I am talking about persons who are being killed for their organs and or cells. This is entirely two different things. It's one thing not to honor a person's desires for their remains after death; it's entirely another matter to kill them for their organs.
I am not "suggesting" I am saying that an underclass of society, "the unborn" are being abused.
Hypothetical questions work both ways. How do you know she would die? Doctors can be wrong.
Well, it is kind of hard to believe that when people go to all kinds of trouble to hack into web servers to deface web pages, they won't avail themselves of the opportunity to do it much more easily. Perhaps they do need to change the policy to where editorial rights are restricted until a person becomes more of a "known quantity."
If it's not living at the point of conception, then what is it?
Hypothetical question: what happens if one day they discover a therapy that will cure MS? The problem is that it requires the pituatary glands of 70 year old humans? Will we then say, "Well, these people have lived most of their lives already, they are of little further "usefulness," so why not harvest what we need? Could anyone see this happening?
I know this is a standard Slashdot joke, but it's really not funny.
Well, I base my distinction upon the teachings of the Bible, so it is obvious where we part ways to me. I'm not going to get into a discussion of differences/similarities based on physical characteristics or even mental abilities of humans versus animals. Humans and animals are different because humans have an eternal soul. They are made in God's image. As far as hate speech is concerned, you are making a connection which isn't there. Animals belong to species; humans belong to races.
I would question the advisability of her having sexual relations in that situation.
Actually, that might be a good analogy supporting Intelligent Design, but in my opinion, not the present discussion ;)
A spontaneous abortion is just that "spontaneous." A regular abortion is done because someone decides to do it. That is a moral choice. As far as God's involvement in this, I do believe God is in control. However, I would rather have Him making these kinds of decisions rather than humans. I mean no disrespect by this.
No, they won't if they're not given a chance.
Please remember that I am not the one who made the "Mengele" comment. However, didn't you say that you wouldn't draw any lines? Are you now saying that there are lines you wouldn't cross?
Well, actually, the embryo is a person according to my beliefs. We are coming at this issue from two different directions. Because of my Christian beliefs, I believe that there are things more important than maintaining physical life. I believe there is a God to whom we are accountable. To me, quality of life is more than just our ability to think, eat, sleep, procreate, etc. It is the quality of the decisions and life we live. Because of this, a "ends justifies the means" pragmatism is not viable.
And when is that? And what kind of thoughts?
Thank you for your honesty. Do you see a set of circumstances where the lives of what you would describe as human beings should be cut short for a "greater purpose"?
When does a human become human?
Where did your friends and relatives come from? At what point would you consider them living?