It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News2 mins ago
A Sacred Foetus?
72 Answers
To paraphrase Dawkins if I may, is it right that we give less importance to a thinking feeling chimpanzee than to a foetus that has the [mental capacity] of a worm, but the potential to grow into a human being?
Personally, I disagree with Dawkins, and hold that all human life is far more valuable than animal life.
Should the word, "sacred," be used here?
Thank you.
Personally, I disagree with Dawkins, and hold that all human life is far more valuable than animal life.
Should the word, "sacred," be used here?
Thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Pleasure, Theland.
I'm still dissecting that fantastic link you posted the other day, the other day. If I had wanted to pick an example of utterly dreadful scholarship to show up how badly Creationists lie, misquote and misunderstand, I couldn't have done better. Virtually every point it raises is provably wrong, ranging from the complex right down to the Creation/Evolution equivalent of 1+1=2.
I'm still dissecting that fantastic link you posted the other day, the other day. If I had wanted to pick an example of utterly dreadful scholarship to show up how badly Creationists lie, misquote and misunderstand, I couldn't have done better. Virtually every point it raises is provably wrong, ranging from the complex right down to the Creation/Evolution equivalent of 1+1=2.
Octavius.
What is to one man is stale
to
women is profound.
Theland. I am still unsure why you consider human life more valuable, other than this is your faith. Have you no other reasons as that sounds a bit like when a parent says"because I said so", meaning they have no coherent reason, have lost their temper and want to clinch the argument.
There is a debate to be had around whether human life is when the baby is born, has legal status, brought alive through god's breath or at the stage of a foetus. The foetus is not a parasite but has a parasitical dependency on the host/mother and therefore arguably belongs to the mother and is her to do what she will. So nurture this precious cargo with all the care in the world or terminate immediately this unwanted problem. Her issue alone and not the business of pro life men thank you very much.
Or are you talking about post birth and value? Is value quite a subjective matter? Is the value what it is worth to the beholder - such as how much worth do we place on my dog versus your next door neighbour, or, how much value the object has to offer, my seeing eye/sniffer/ mountain rescue dog versus your neighbour serving life for multiple murders.
Just some points to see if I can rouse you to a debate rather than this post merely being the stage for Octavius and Waldo to enact some verbal duel, which whilst interesting for the audience but not very inclusive and a bit testosterone fuelled!
What is to one man is stale
to
women is profound.
Theland. I am still unsure why you consider human life more valuable, other than this is your faith. Have you no other reasons as that sounds a bit like when a parent says"because I said so", meaning they have no coherent reason, have lost their temper and want to clinch the argument.
There is a debate to be had around whether human life is when the baby is born, has legal status, brought alive through god's breath or at the stage of a foetus. The foetus is not a parasite but has a parasitical dependency on the host/mother and therefore arguably belongs to the mother and is her to do what she will. So nurture this precious cargo with all the care in the world or terminate immediately this unwanted problem. Her issue alone and not the business of pro life men thank you very much.
Or are you talking about post birth and value? Is value quite a subjective matter? Is the value what it is worth to the beholder - such as how much worth do we place on my dog versus your next door neighbour, or, how much value the object has to offer, my seeing eye/sniffer/ mountain rescue dog versus your neighbour serving life for multiple murders.
Just some points to see if I can rouse you to a debate rather than this post merely being the stage for Octavius and Waldo to enact some verbal duel, which whilst interesting for the audience but not very inclusive and a bit testosterone fuelled!
Ruby - If human life has an intrinsic value, in and of itself, without any value being subjectively imposed or attributed from outside, then it is our duty to preserve that life and bestow on it our protection, and ensure its dignity. That means that the unborn feotus then becomes the concern of all of us, not simply the mother. That is why so many men feel a license to comment on what is in effect a female affair.
If human life has no other value, other than what we attribute to it, then we must by definition equate this value with the usefulness of such a life.
During WW2, my father was a P.O.W. on the Burma railway, and his life was valued by the Japanese, only for as long as they could get 12 to 18 hours of work per day in return for a handful of rice.
Obviously, his life was more meaningful than this, and had value in and of itself, regardless of the low esteem attributed by the captors.
The same morality is applicable where the foetus is concerned, in my opinion.
That is not a properly comprehensive reply to your post, but time does not permit otherwise just yet and I'll try to post again soon. Thank you Ruby.
If human life has no other value, other than what we attribute to it, then we must by definition equate this value with the usefulness of such a life.
During WW2, my father was a P.O.W. on the Burma railway, and his life was valued by the Japanese, only for as long as they could get 12 to 18 hours of work per day in return for a handful of rice.
Obviously, his life was more meaningful than this, and had value in and of itself, regardless of the low esteem attributed by the captors.
The same morality is applicable where the foetus is concerned, in my opinion.
That is not a properly comprehensive reply to your post, but time does not permit otherwise just yet and I'll try to post again soon. Thank you Ruby.
how can something have an 'objective value'? I thought value necessarily meant that it was based on what people ascribed to something. I think maybe it's easier to grasp if we break 'what people ascribed to something' into its component parts:
-values which come from being human. Humans evolved to occupy a niche, and certain kin/sexual/group behaviours were selected for. It is hard to code for these behaviours in the brain without making the brain put 'value' on things. By this process, a father puts more value on his son's life than he does on that of a stranger. Does this mean that his son's life has any objective value other than this (and a few vague extensions of this in the group and in culture)? Hell no! Where could it possibly be? lol. In a 'value cloud' floating above his head? When it is said that his life has *value*, the ideas planted in your head by evolutionary adaptiveness are just being reified.
-values which are added by culture and civilization. These are just an extension of the above values, with some social contract stuff added on.
To give a concrete example of this: motion put before parliament tomorrow to legalize murder. Chances of success? Slim.
Motion put before parliament to retain abortion limit, and retain legal abortions. Chances of success? Very good.
But both have as their object the destruction of a human life. Oh sure, one aint born yet, but I think if that were you in there, you'd be saying 'give it a couple of weeks please pal'.
-values which come from being human. Humans evolved to occupy a niche, and certain kin/sexual/group behaviours were selected for. It is hard to code for these behaviours in the brain without making the brain put 'value' on things. By this process, a father puts more value on his son's life than he does on that of a stranger. Does this mean that his son's life has any objective value other than this (and a few vague extensions of this in the group and in culture)? Hell no! Where could it possibly be? lol. In a 'value cloud' floating above his head? When it is said that his life has *value*, the ideas planted in your head by evolutionary adaptiveness are just being reified.
-values which are added by culture and civilization. These are just an extension of the above values, with some social contract stuff added on.
To give a concrete example of this: motion put before parliament tomorrow to legalize murder. Chances of success? Slim.
Motion put before parliament to retain abortion limit, and retain legal abortions. Chances of success? Very good.
But both have as their object the destruction of a human life. Oh sure, one aint born yet, but I think if that were you in there, you'd be saying 'give it a couple of weeks please pal'.
WHY is this distinction allowed to take place? It's because even though many think they believe that 'Murder is a crime to protect the value of lives', that is bu****t: it's because the whole notion of preserving one's own life and that of members of your close group is coded in your skull. If it were based on value, people would refuse to go to war, and refuse to vote for MPs who voted prochoice.
There is a value given to human life only in as much as that is what we are built to do. This in no way means there is any intrinsic value in life itself. Unless you'd care to justify to me why such a notion should have value.
ps I'm not opening an abortion debate here, I'm just using it to illustrate my point.
There is a value given to human life only in as much as that is what we are built to do. This in no way means there is any intrinsic value in life itself. Unless you'd care to justify to me why such a notion should have value.
ps I'm not opening an abortion debate here, I'm just using it to illustrate my point.
Marg0, until it is established beyond reasonable doubt one way or the other, whether or not a human life has intrinsic value of its own, and not objectively attributed to it by some outside agency, then the whole question of a, "sacred foetus," hangs in the balance.
As ruby27 pointed out, my belief in God underpins many of my attitudes on questions of morals and ethics, and therefore although I am comfortable in using Gods' authority to determine my views on the value of human life, it is not convincing for others who are not believers.
As ruby27 pointed out, my belief in God underpins many of my attitudes on questions of morals and ethics, and therefore although I am comfortable in using Gods' authority to determine my views on the value of human life, it is not convincing for others who are not believers.
In my world view the expression 'intrinsic value' or 'objective value' are both contradictions in terms. An object only has value in the eyes of the one giving it value (perhaps as dictated by others who see it as such). This is the way I understand the world to be. I would like it to be full of things with real value and objective moral norms, but really I think they do not exist, and while I think imagined ones are handy for a functioning society, I think they are ultimately illusory.
The only way therefor to get around this is to coat the whole of the world with a new cloak, namely 'God'. Since God had an idea for the universe, it came from him and his purposes are it's ultimate goal, therefor things derive an ultimate value in this respect.
But I do not believe that there is a God, so this is just a nice hypothesis to me, nothing more. It does grate me slightly that senior church figures in the UK, for example, can try to find common ground with secularists over ethical issues, whereas in fact, they cannot even 'sit down together at the same chess table' as Coppleston would put it.
As for the other point: I would say that Dawkins is a scientist, not a preacher or political ideologist. I say this to strengthen his standpoint, not to offer mitigation of it. This is because science states what it discovers irrespective of the political or ideological ramifications thereof.
"The truth will set you free'. If he states the truth and someone takes those facts and builds a stupid ideology around them, that's their problem, not Dawkins'.
The only way therefor to get around this is to coat the whole of the world with a new cloak, namely 'God'. Since God had an idea for the universe, it came from him and his purposes are it's ultimate goal, therefor things derive an ultimate value in this respect.
But I do not believe that there is a God, so this is just a nice hypothesis to me, nothing more. It does grate me slightly that senior church figures in the UK, for example, can try to find common ground with secularists over ethical issues, whereas in fact, they cannot even 'sit down together at the same chess table' as Coppleston would put it.
As for the other point: I would say that Dawkins is a scientist, not a preacher or political ideologist. I say this to strengthen his standpoint, not to offer mitigation of it. This is because science states what it discovers irrespective of the political or ideological ramifications thereof.
"The truth will set you free'. If he states the truth and someone takes those facts and builds a stupid ideology around them, that's their problem, not Dawkins'.
On the question of abortion, the politicians have wrung their hands for years over the legal limits, and they are trying to be all things to all men, and women, and they are bound to never get it completely right.
So, how is somebody who does not believe in God supposed to make a decision on what is acceptable abortion, and what is cold blooded killing.
As the scale moves along from 20 weeks, then 30 weeks, then 35 weeks, well, where is the limit?
This is important in determining where the values lie?
So, how is somebody who does not believe in God supposed to make a decision on what is acceptable abortion, and what is cold blooded killing.
As the scale moves along from 20 weeks, then 30 weeks, then 35 weeks, well, where is the limit?
This is important in determining where the values lie?
If you were asked by the government to advise them on what would be the correct cut off point for refusing abortion on demand, what would you say?
If you said 24 weeks, then a critic would ask you if a 25 week old foetus had more life value than a 23 week old foetus. But there would have to be a cut off point somewhere.
I could not answer that question, as I cannot see the value of a life growing with the age of the foetus.
If you said 24 weeks, then a critic would ask you if a 25 week old foetus had more life value than a 23 week old foetus. But there would have to be a cut off point somewhere.
I could not answer that question, as I cannot see the value of a life growing with the age of the foetus.
Latest Posts
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
News10 mins ago
News12 mins ago
