Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[SirRumpole]

my question was about whether you felt a few cells like this, have full human rights.

And my answer is concerned with what ivf does to the children in their adult lives , especially if donors are anonymous. I know a family who have an ivf child who contracted systic fibrosis through a donor. Once money comes into the equation, standards fall very quickly.

 

[Value Collector]

And my answer is concerned with what ivf does to the children in their adult lives ,

Which has nothing to do with the question I asked, as I said you are dodging the question.

So let me ask again.

Ignoring any other moral issues with the IVF system.

If a man and a women went to IVF do help conceive their own biological child.

and in the process, 8 fertilised eggs are formed but they only want 2 children, Is it morally wrong to discard the unwanted/needed embryos? given that they look like the picture I added, eg no brain or anything simply a lump of a few cells.

 

[Wysiwyg]

So the higher up the spectrum of consciousness the more rights will will probably give the animal.

Possibly the number and size of creatures is considered when determining acceptable or not. You are right typing people care less about living things with lower consciousness.

Passing rant:
Reduction of carbon emitting substances aside, the rapid rate of planetary destruction by humans is acceptable at present. Pockets of nature are being preserved yes but this allows deforestation and pollutants right up to the zone. It is not natural, human nature.
99 out of 100 people will walk past a plastic bottle laying in the footpath gutter later to be swept into a stormwater drain then into a river. Thinking someone else will pick it up or they feel embarrased doing so. Maybe it's the social order of things where human waste is the lower order peoples responsibility. Maybe there is fear the plastic bottle has infectious disease attached.

4th March is Clean Up Australia Day but everday in some way is good. A Create Less Waste program installed in everyones mind would be helpful.

 

[SirRumpole]

Ignoring any other moral issues with the IVF system.

Why ignore "other moral issues", they are a fact and form part of the whole.

 

[Value Collector]

Why ignore "other moral issues", they are a fact and form part of the whole.

Your problem is around donor sperm/eggs isn't it? so in my example that problem doesn't exist.

But I am not actually trying to gauge your opinion on IVF, but rather your opinion on where the human rights start, eg do you consider the lump of cells to be human yet.

 

[SirRumpole]

Your problem is around donor sperm/eggs isn't it? so in my example that problem doesn't exist.

But I am not actually trying to gauge your opinion on IVF, but rather your opinion on where the human rights start, eg do you consider the lump of cells to be human yet.

Do you consider the foundations of a house to be an integral part of the house ?

 

[grah33]

I am not an embryologist, but it would be far enough along that the baby has developed enough that it's brain its functional and it has consciousness, and as I said if you were making a rule of law, you would give some safety margin and make the cut off a bit earlier.

that would cover point 1 that I mentioned.

there is still the issue of the mothers rights to her body though, technically no matter how old the baby is, it doesn't have the right to live inside its mother if she doesn't want it in there.

However, given the fact the mother can terminate during early stages, I would be ok with the law requiring her to keep it once it gets to late, unless there is a really terrible heath consequence for the mother, eg a good chance both her and the baby with die unless its aborted.

Fair enough. You feel it better abortions occur early on, so it doesn't get uglier than what it is already. And, related to my argument, you also said you can understand the need for late term abortions. You agree that the mother has the authority to choose whether it will continue to live (a common view many people have).

I will apply my argument to late term abortions since you said you understand the woman's right to abort no matter how old the unborn child is.

Now , if you agree that a human, who is in this case perhaps almost equal or equal to another human (8 month old), can abort the child, that it isn't wrong, then my argument is this:

God can also perform an abortion if He thinks there is a worthy reason, and even more so, since He isn't equal to human beings, but a more superior life form. Also, that God is particularly capable of doing it because of His understanding of the situation at hand. So one can apply this to the innocent babies in e.g. Sodom/gomorah and other examples.

I use the analogy of a chicken farmer now since it makes it even clearer. Nobody would call a farmer immoral for aborting his baby chickens, if he/she felt it would be better to end their lives, since we regard the farmer as a more superior life form than the chicken.

I'm applying this example to late term abortions since you said the woman has rights even in these situations.

Now do you understand my point of view?

 

[grah33]

The funny thing about Weinberg, like so terribly many ardent critics of religion, is that he is completely oblivious to his own religiosity. It is really quite comical!

I am of the view that he was initially on the right track but was blinded (by his personal prejudice), to the existence of some important distinctions, resulting in his somewhat erroneous conclusion. (I say that it takes one very specific religion, namely "HolierThanThouism", for good people to do evil things.)

Like those whom proudly quote him, he chooses not to recognise the full true meaning of the word religion, thereby disavowing its presence in his own psyche, and maintaining his personal fantasy of freedom from hypocrisy.

I think when I saw Dawkins creating children's books about myths, with Christ alongside Medusa, that's when I thought he should use his time more productively elsewhere. Anybody who studies enough knows the effect of Christ's influence on mankind, and in particular the formerly Christian based countries.

 

[Value Collector]

Do you consider the foundations of a house to be an integral part of the house ?

Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question?

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question?

I think I just gave you an answer you don't like.

 

[bellenuit]

You haven't proved anything related to this issue. And I just hope you realize this. Maybe you're just writing on an impulse. You asked qs, and I gave answers. With this kind of posting, it doesn't bring out the best in a thread. This also seems to happen at the pro debating level too.

But I have. By not accepting that Christian morality that doesn't condone vile acts of God is clearly better than Christian morality that does condone vile acts of God you are clearly asserting that condoning vile acts of God is morally of no consequences.

Weinberg is talking rubbish. I know people in real life that help the poor, and give alms. It's because they believe in God, that they devote so much of their time, not getting paid for it. But they have a peace and other good things. To them it's worth it and they get back from it. They're nice people in real life too. You're judging again.

We are all aware that there many good people in the world, some religious, some not. And just as you are saying, he is also saying that with or without religion good people will do good things. But we also know good people do bad things even though they know those things are bad, but because their minds are warped by religion they justify it. One need not go though all the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by people who believed they were doing the right thing or go through some of the vile acts being committed by some other groups in the world today to prove that point. It should be self evident.

 

[grah33]

But I have. By not accepting that Christian morality that doesn't condone vile acts of God is clearly better than Christian morality that does condone vile acts of God you are clearly asserting that condoning vile acts of God is morally of no consequences.



We are all aware that there many good people in the world, some religious, some not. And just as you are saying, he is also saying that with or without religion good people will do good things. But we also know good people do bad things even though they know those things are bad, but because their minds are warped by religion they justify it. One need not go though all the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by people who believed they were doing the right thing or go through some of the vile acts being committed by some other groups in the world today to prove that point. It should be self evident.

Listen to yourself in your first paragraph. It's as though i never gave an answer. A lot of people won't buy that. I won't repeat explanations.

And no, believe me, the people I know do good because they believe in God. There are many such people out there.

I don't understand why you're reacting like this. Maybe there is something you're fighting, i don't know. You did say that one of your parents nags? you to get back on the right path, or something similar? If that is the case, I can relate to it (many years back). Maybe you feel like you're fighting something, or you got to justify your departure from the faith (really don't know, wild guess).

 

[Value Collector]

I think I just gave you an answer you don't like.

No, I really have no idea what you mean, you just seem to be dodging the question?

Edit-

Unless you are saying that a that fertilized egg is like the foundation of the house?

But would you call a concrete slab a house? I don’t think so, nor would I call a lump of a few cells a human.

 

[bellenuit]

Listen to yourself in your first paragraph. It's as though i never gave an answer. A lot of people won't buy that. I won't repeat explanations.

And no, believe me, the people I know do good because they believe in God. There are many such people out there.

I don't understand why you're reacting like this. Maybe there is something you're fighting, i don't know. You did say that one of your parents nags? you to get back on the right path, or something similar? If that is the case, I can relate to it (many years back). Maybe you feel like you're fighting something, or you got to justify your departure from the faith (really don't know, wild guess).

Must be someone else. Certainly not me. I have no gripes with religion as such, people can believe what they want. But I will call out those who claim their religion offers perfect morality and in the same breath justify the slaughter of innocents in the name of said religion.

Anyway, I won't continue to argue with you. You have stated your position on God committing vile acts and you have no issue with it.

 

[SirRumpole]

No, I really have no idea what you mean, you just seem to be dodging the question?

Edit-

Unless you are saying that a that fertilized egg is like the foundation of the house?

But would you call a concrete slab a house? I don’t think so, nor would I call a lump of a few cells a human.

The point is that you can't have a house without foundations and you can't have a human without those cells. Destroy the cells and you destroy the human.

 

[SirRumpole]

But I will call out those who claim their religion offers perfect morality and in the same breath justify the slaughter of innocents in the name of said religion.

That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".

 

[grah33]

That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".

I didn't catch the VC's argument with all the posting...

Some differences:
God regarded the nations as detestable and causing harm to the planet/themselves (unlike WW2 people)

There is a BIG difference between God killing humans, and humans killing themselves. It's like a farmer killing his chickens (not immoral) vs chickens killing chickens (assuming they had morals ). A Creator of life would be in a better position to do it, while it's particularly grievous when equal lives kill each other.

Regards moral superiority, the morality of the New Testament (not the Law in the OT) is better than secular morality. I gave some examples such as abortion and marriage. An atheist responded with an example of an animal getting killed to argue their point against me. And by morality, we are talking about what kind of morals we follow, rather than Bible stories.

 

[grah33]

That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".

Oh okay, now I understand. Yeah, good point. Amazes me how Bell has been rolling over this idea on and on.
edit: I misread your line. I thought you said " no difference between the arg. that Bell was proposing when compared to Hiroshima..." ie in both cases (Soddom and Hiroshima, innocents were killed...). Sorry to confuse everyone .

 

[Value Collector]

The point is that you can't have a house without foundations and you can't have a human without those cells. Destroy the cells and you destroy the human.

Yes, but foundations by itself is not yet a house.

By your logic you have destroyed human life every time you have masturbated in the shower, because you can’t have the foundation without the sperm and you let you sorry fo down the drain.

 

[Value Collector]

That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".

When have I claimed to have perfect morality?

I never claimed dropping the nukes was the best moral option, just that it may have been.

I am simply recognizing that people dying doesn’t automatically make it immoral.

Eg, when that shooter in Las Vegas was firing from the window and killed 58 people,

If some one could have fired a rocket at him killed him 1 minute into his spree saving 45 people firing the rocket would be the moral thing to do, even if an innocent person in the hotel room next door died.