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.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 ,
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.So the higher up the spectrum of consciousness the more rights will will probably give the animal.
Ignoring any other moral issues with the IVF system.
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.
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.
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.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.
Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question?Do you consider the foundations of a house to be an integral part of the house ?
Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question?
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.
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.
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.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.
No, I really have no idea what you mean, you just seem to be dodging the question?I think I just gave you an answer you don't like.
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).
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.
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.
I didn't catch the VC's argument with all the posting...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.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".
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.
When have I claimed to have perfect morality?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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?