2
   

"Life begins at conception"

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:42 pm
patiodog wrote:
Quote:
Did Mother Teresa not have a far greater impact on the world than if she had married and had a slew of kids?


Yes, she encouraged millions of other women to have a slew of kids. Great.


ROFL!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2004 07:24 am
The truth is that life begins at 40
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 06:35 am
<bump>

farmerman signature wrote:
conservatives believe that life begins at conception[...]


some liberals,too. Look on the first post.
0 Replies
 
adam k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:20 am
Perhaps life does begin at conception. You could make a case for that. But the problem is, too many people want to start there and leap to "therefore, abortion is murder." And it's not.
Bury an acorn in the ground for a week and water it. Does that constitute the beginning of life for an oak? Perhaps. But if you dig up that acorn, is it the same as cutting down a fully grown tree?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:40 am
the current administration probably believes life begins at impure thoughts....
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 05:47 pm
Is the question about the beginning of life, per se, or the beginning of personhood? After all a worm is alive but that does not earn him your reverence.
While the the beginning of "life" is largely an empirical question, the beginning of personhood is not an empirical question; it's a definitional one. It depends on how one arbitarily defines "person". (and, of course, the question of the beginning of life is to a lesser degree a definitional matter, an issue for the life sciences. But there's no corresponding discipline for the scientific definition of "person").
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 05:58 pm
There are religious definitions though, which I know is at the heart of most opinions that abortion is murder. It's partly a matter of when the soul comes into existence (or enters the body as your religion may be).
0 Replies
 
EamonnKeane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 12:32 pm
Patiodog, would you say the same about Africans?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 12:36 pm
Life begins with primordial ooze, but that doesn't mean every cell should get preserved. Also, souls are mere conjecture. I for one assert they are not for real.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 02:04 pm
If believers of certain religions contend that the person begins with the emergence of a its "soul" or that life begins with conception and is more valuable than the life of a born individual, then the solution to the conflict between them and their ideological opponnents is simple. They simply "should" not have abortions under any circumstances. But they have no validly established (universally acknowledged) right to control the bodies of women who either believe otherwise or hold that particular abortions are necessary evils. It is amazing how right to life advocates can cast aside the lives of medically endangered women and the lives of capital crimminals (whom they consider to have souls). The contradictions in their worldview are mind boggling, almost as boggling as their ability to rationalize them away.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 02:56 pm
JLNobody: As I've noted elsewhere:
    Sorry, this argument doesn't wash either. It's like those bumper stickers -- "Don't like abortion? Then don't have one!" The problem with this line of logic is that it's like saying "don't like murder? Then don't kill someone!" As long as anti-abortionists believe that abortion is murder, they are acting perfectly reasonably in opposing [i]anyone's[/i] abortion, just as those opposed to murder are perfectly reasonable in opposing any murder.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 03:24 pm
Whether something is universally acknowledged is no indication of truth.

Just as Joe said, it doesn't matter whether the murderer BELIEVES he is committing murder--I would want to stop any murderer, regardless of their view of their own actions.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:35 pm
Joe, good point, but it isn't as if abortion and murder have been validly equated, and that's the point. I'm against killing people in war (at least most wars, like the Iraqui war and where I consider doing so murder); it is therefore my moral responsiblity to myself to avoid being put in a situation where I must kill an iraqui to save myself. And I know that most Americans would insist that I be jailed for that belief/action. Similarly, an anti-abortionist may argue that I be jailed (or killed) for carrying out an abortion. The problem is not whether or not it is reaonable to oppose abortion because it seen as murder; the problem is whether or not one has the right to define reality for others. Does a person have the nonproblematical right to put me in jail for conscientious objection simply because THEY define pacificism as wrong?
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:42 pm
If they felt your pacifism was endangering lives (which they could argue, and I personally would disagree with), and if they felt so strongly enough, it would be odd for them to not threaten you with jailtime. What else but our beliefs do we have to act on?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:50 pm
scoates, you are right. We can only act on the basis of our beiefs. But it is preferrable that they be reasonable. For example, if "they" jail me because they believe that my non-participation in the war will endanger the lives of those fighting the war, doesn't my encarcertation contribution to that endangerment? Would their argument be based on an assumption of deterrence? If so, does that meet the standard of reasonableness?
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:55 pm
Let's take an episode of Star Treck for example (have some fun with me Smile ). Captain Picard is captured and replaced with some sort of doppleganger. Eventually the crew grows concerned at his strange actions, and plans a mutiny. They certainly have no right to disobey their captain, or mutiny, but they believe it is the correct thing to do, and we can support their decision since we (the viewers) have a little inside info, but from their point of view it was not as simple as "Do we have the right to do this?" It came down to "What do we think is right? And do we think it right enough that we must force the captain to step down from his view/actions?"

Obviously this example from Star Treck solves the age old disagreement, proving that abortion is wrong.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:56 pm
scoates, by the way, you note that: "Whether something is universally acknowledged is no indication of truth." Of course that's right, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about rules (criteria) for action which become universally binding because they reflect criteria established by institutionalized methods.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:01 pm
As to your last post (second to last post now), if everyone had a perfect sense of right an wrong, there would be no problem. The real problem arises when someones sense (whether correct or incorrect) is so different than that of someone else, that they feel bound to contend. Either as we are, civilly, or with guns, or protest signs, or... phasers as it may be. Smile
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:05 pm
JLNobody wrote:
scoates, by the way, you note that: "Whether something is universally acknowledged is no indication of truth." Of course that's right, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about rules (criteria) for action which become universally binding because they reflect criteria established by institutionalized methods.


I just threw the point out casually. It was only meant as a truth, and not really an argument. Incidentally it wasn't very useful.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:17 pm
SCoates, if I recall correctly, the movie, The CiderHouse Rules, addressed a similar situation. If was about a young medical caregiver who did not believe in abortion (on moral grounds) but in a concrete case decided (on ethical grounds) that it was necessary. Morals are general rules; ethics has to do with concrete situations, and sometimes moral principles do not apply to particular situations. What does one do then? Well, one then has to break loose from his cultural programming and take responsibility for original thought, but, I suppose, in pursuit of solutions that do not grossly violate moral sensibilities. It's just that it is rarely a simple matter of following rules like a programmed automaton. Social solutions are not always individual solutions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2024 at 09:06:50