Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Is "When Does Life Begin?" a Scientific or Moral Question? Both?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

The most prevalent risks associated with having unprotected sex are pregnancy and STD transmission. If you have unprotected sex then you are assuming those risks, regardless of whether or not you 'consent' to them taking place. Your willful participation in the activity is your consent. 

I'm not talking exclusively about unprotected sex, but regarding STDs, you seem to be skewing to casual sex and ignoring the longterm monogamous relationships with people who know each others' sexual and health histories. 

No, willful participation in sex in and of itself is simply and inarguably not consent to have a man internally ejaculate. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

They say “perfectly” which implies something besides trying to do it to the best of his ability, imo (especially with younger men who apparently are more likely to release semen earlier).

From the way they phrase it, it is not intent that determines how effective the method is.  It is not unpleasant and thus men get it wrong, but difficult to do effectively according to them.

”But pulling out can be difficult to do perfectly. So in real life, about 22 out of 100 people who use withdrawal get pregnant every year — that’s about 1 in 5.”

Isn’t it a woman’s agency to pay attention close enough to check if a man has put on a condom or not? (Outside of deception where he might remove it last second)?

So she is equally or more responsible for a pregnancy if she didn't exercise disciplined and strict enough oversight of the activity of the man who intentionally caused the pregnancy? That strikes me as a significantly asymmetrical standard. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that even if the man’s intentions are to use the technique perfectly, any unintentional mishap is a product of his agency “over and against the agency of women”?

I'm sorry, I cannot continue to take the time to try to deconstruct such simple concepts when you continue to so wildly and willfully misconstrue what I'm saying just to defend a dogma. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I was using hyperbole in comparing us to the Catholics.  I don’t actually think we’re cold blooded killers.

Hyperbole isn’t very persuasive imo 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Dan McClellan said:

I'm sorry, I cannot continue to take the time to try to deconstruct such simple concepts when you continue to so wildly and willfully misconstrue what I'm saying just to defend a dogma. 

Umm...that was a clarifying question to better understand your position. There was no wild and willful misconstruing of anything.  I was using direct quotes from you and offering you a chance to clarify, because I either misunderstand your position or it is unsubstantiated.

If you can’t answer simple questions, I question the strength of your position.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Rivers said:

This is an issue in which I have some holy envy for the Catholics.  For them a life is a life as soon as sperm meets egg.  Intentionally killing it is bad even in cases of rape and incest no matter how early in development.   I used to think that this was an absurdly extreme stance but now I have a lot of respect for such and intense and unfaltering reverence for human life.  They make us look like cold-blooded killers with our more nuanced stance on abortion.  

I definitely don’t hold holy envy on this note. I knew a catholic couple who struggled with fertility. Luckily for them, in vitro worked like a charm. But because they were staunch catholic, they believed they needed to give every last blastula a chance. They ended up with a plethora of children and a fried marriage as they went on survival mode for several years trying to care for a severely special needs child and raising multiples. 

 

Ascribing cold blooded killers to those who decide not to use every split-celled human organism in a freezer during their family planning seems excessive. But oddly we don’t even really talk about that as much in an abortion debate...because it’s not an abortion. It’s a frozen set of cells with minimal development that has a decreased odds of viability each month/year its frozen. Slowly killing or reducing a person’s ability to live often is considered torture. But again...not described that way. Because it’s not. Oversimplification doesn’t really help in most cases...it leaves us with a different mess when the complexity of life rudely comes in the way. 

 

Along those lines to the main post...that this thread has lasted 12 pages is evidence to me that when does life begin and when does a human life reach personhood have some biological but mostly moral/belief oriented answers. No one has an answer solid enough that another person is satisfied with it who believes differently. People can view and experience the exact same things and still have a different outlook on it. 

For example, a friend of mine assumed that having a baby would alter my perspectives on abortion (i’m neither pro life or pro choice...more pro pragmatism and balance in compassion). It didnt much...except that I realized that within pragmatic boundaries, i wouldn’t insist another woman to go through these experiences if they really didn’t want to. And that i dont think there’s one specific moment that my baby’s spirit entered her body. To me it felt like weaving a soul. Threads were placed together but a single thread does not make a tapestry, per se. It took time for her to be knit together. I couldn’t tell you exactly when that flipped (probably around the 2nd trimester) and there’s still a deep respect and honor for life in there. It’s that respect for life, bodies, and both the women and the small starts of bodies within them that guide to believe that only a nuanced decision can be had in our fallen world.

 

Beyond that what also establishes my view is working with women in forms of mourning from miscarriage and deaths. It’s simply not the same no matter how short the life of the person that lived. The youngest they were mourning was well shy of a month. With that, they were mourning a person with traits. With miscarriages they were mourning ideas: hopes and desires lost, possibly fear about what this meant for future pregnancies. Still births (in-utero death post 20 weeks) are often a little bit of a mix of these. And this is only miscarriages of wanted pregnancies that were known. A large chunk of early miscarriages are believed to happen before a woman realizes she’s pregnant. In these cases there may not be any mourning at all. 

 

With luv, 

BD

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Remember those  the good old simple days when all we talked about was the LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual) stuff?

Oh yeah, those were the days!  ;)

I mean what else is there to talk about on an LDS board?   I guess we found it.  

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/15/2019 at 10:58 PM, clarkgoble said:

It's also worth noting that if abortion is wrong then those wanting it made illegal should also be working to reduce abortions. Sadly it's typically common on the pro-life side to support making it illegal but do little to reduce abortions and often support practices making abortion more likely. (Such as making contraception more difficult to obtain) My sad view is that many on both sides treat the issue as a form of virtue signaling rather than an intrinsically important ethical issue.

Hi Clark.

Who would want to make "contraception more difficult to obtain"? Catholics who believe what the Church teaches? It seems like you are talking about Catholic health systems and professionals. You are probably aware that the Catholic Church has maintained the illegitimacy of artificial birth control even between married persons? It is not better for them but worse, for unmarried persons, to commit the marriage act and in addition, contracept, frustrating the purpose of the act. With that nugget with which you will be shaking your head, How can Catholics in good conscience participate in an activity, selling articles of contraception, that is for them, intrinsically evil? The answer is that we can participate unwillingly. It would be what moral theologians call "remote participation".

I worked for 21 years in the medical waste industry. During my early years, this involved the necessity that I occasionally enter abortion clinic to transport their "medical waste" for governmentally regulated disposal. I thought I was going to have to quit my job. I hadn't reckoned with being in an abortion clinic. I questioned two priests who have participated in Right to Life marches, rallies, and otherwise clearly demonstrated that they hold that abortion is murder, without qualifications for rape, incest, or life of the mother (if both would die anyway, I believe it is permitted to abort the child to save the mother). I explained how that I was confident that these customers were almost certainly disposing of fetal tissue though our services. Both priests recognized that I did not take this job because I supported abortion. They taught me the difference between proximate participation and remote participation in any activity. Because I was personally providing a service that was repugnant to me for the purpose of supporting my family I was told that I should have a clear conscience. If I should quit my job, it would not help the perpetrators or the victims of abortion, therefore it was permissible to "participate" in abortions in such an indirect and "remote" fashion. At that time, the clinics had to sign a document saying that there was no fetal tissue in what we were carrying away. I found this helpful to my conscience as well, but I don't think it was necessary as I look back.

I would suggest that a similar situation can force Catholic institutions and medical professionals to provide contraception services in good conscience. They cannot do so willingly, just because they want to make money, and with a disregard for the sinful act that these products promote. Rather, it needs to be repugnant and they need to be forced to do it by some outside force that could threaten their livelihoods if they refused. One should not commit a small sin if it seems like it would have wonderful consequences or avoid disaster. It would be faithless of us to think that Providence would ever place us in a position where we have to alienate ourselves from God in order to bring about a greater good. Remote participation in a sin means that you do not in any way agree with it, and it is not sinful for you if you cannot prevent it. Is an LDS mailman permitted to deliver Playboy magazines? Are LDS wait staff allowed to sell cocktails? Many common professions can be remotely linked to some kind of sin. That is how it needs to be. Remote, unwilling. I tend to believe that those cake makers could claim remote participation if they would lose their license to operate by failing to provide homosexual wedding cakes. Like Catholic health professionals though, they must offer resistance and try to avoid even remote participation if possible.

With regard to our desire to reduce abortions, it could not be at the cost of reducing conceptions. I strongly hold that it would be better to be an aborted baby than to never have lived. Even when persons sinfully participate in the marriage act apart from marriage conceive a child, that life is still a gift of God. It is a great good and society must do all we can to welcome it, even should its parents be so unwelcoming as to wish for its death. So when they are aborted, it is still much better than to have never lived at all. A few pro-life Catholics even think they go to heaven. Abortion is of course terribly sinful for those participating proximately. But we all agree that it is not sinful to have been murdered. This is another reason why I think Catholics should rather see aborted babies than "contracepted babies". At least an aborted baby was and is an eternal good that will give eternal glory to God. 

(I realize that few of you here will agree with the Catholic position on contraception, and the logical consequence of our beliefs might be difficult to follow. The reason for our beliefs about contraception is probably even more difficult. Even if we are in your view wrong, I thought it might help to explain some of the moral factors that we have to weigh. Our view on abortion is not simply about saving the child, nor is our view about contraception. It is about saving ourselves and all parties proximately involved, eternally.)

3DOP

---------------------

I am only on p.3. This post will come up on p. 12 or later. I certainly do not want to distract from what might be happening there by prompting a different direction than it is going. But I thought I needed to respond to this.        

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/19/2019 at 10:34 PM, Dan McClellan said:

Two chapters of my doctoral dissertation treat the question directly, so yeah. 

Right. What discipline?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/20/2019 at 3:37 AM, BlueDreams said:

I definitely don’t hold holy envy on this note. I knew a catholic couple who struggled with fertility. Luckily for them, in vitro worked like a charm. But because they were staunch catholic, they believed they needed to give every last blastula a chance. They ended up with a plethora of children and a fried marriage as they went on survival mode for several years trying to care for a severely special needs child and raising multiples. 

 

Ascribing cold blooded killers to those who decide not to use every split-celled human organism in a freezer during their family planning seems excessive. But oddly we don’t even really talk about that as much in an abortion debate...because it’s not an abortion. It’s a frozen set of cells with minimal development that has a decreased odds of viability each month/year its frozen. Slowly killing or reducing a person’s ability to live often is considered torture. But again...not described that way. Because it’s not. Oversimplification doesn’t really help in most cases...it leaves us with a different mess when the complexity of life rudely comes in the way. 

 

Along those lines to the main post...that this thread has lasted 12 pages is evidence to me that when does life begin and when does a human life reach personhood have some biological but mostly moral/belief oriented answers. No one has an answer solid enough that another person is satisfied with it who believes differently. People can view and experience the exact same things and still have a different outlook on it. 

For example, a friend of mine assumed that having a baby would alter my perspectives on abortion (i’m neither pro life or pro choice...more pro pragmatism and balance in compassion). It didnt much...except that I realized that within pragmatic boundaries, i wouldn’t insist another woman to go through these experiences if they really didn’t want to. And that i dont think there’s one specific moment that my baby’s spirit entered her body. To me it felt like weaving a soul. Threads were placed together but a single thread does not make a tapestry, per se. It took time for her to be knit together. I couldn’t tell you exactly when that flipped (probably around the 2nd trimester) and there’s still a deep respect and honor for life in there. It’s that respect for life, bodies, and both the women and the small starts of bodies within them that guide to believe that only a nuanced decision can be had in our fallen world.

 

Beyond that what also establishes my view is working with women in forms of mourning from miscarriage and deaths. It’s simply not the same no matter how short the life of the person that lived. The youngest they were mourning was well shy of a month. With that, they were mourning a person with traits. With miscarriages they were mourning ideas: hopes and desires lost, possibly fear about what this meant for future pregnancies. Still births (in-utero death post 20 weeks) are often a little bit of a mix of these. And this is only miscarriages of wanted pregnancies that were known. A large chunk of early miscarriages are believed to happen before a woman realizes she’s pregnant. In these cases there may not be any mourning at all. 

 

With luv, 

BD

 

I totally agree, which is why I think it is unjust to force by law, your own personal beliefs onto another.  To believe that every abortion is murder means that you believe that every stillborn embryo was murdered by God.  That makes God the worse monster and murderer one could conceive of.  And what about all of those stillborn embryos?  What about those invetro fertilized eggs? Do they get a body? Ever?  And if they do get a body eventually, then were they murdered?  

While people may have opinions on all of this, I doubt anyone can answer the implications of those beliefs.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, california boy said:

To believe that every abortion is murder means that you believe that every stillborn embryo was murdered by God.  That makes God the worse monster and murderer one could conceive of.

Oh my.

Just oh my.

It's hard for me to understand how someone could come up with this logic. Very disturbing.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In other words, you think it is unjust to have laws. Because the whole point of literally every single law ever written is to 'force' a group of people's personal beliefs on the people who disagree with the content of the law. Laws exist solely because personal beliefs differ. 

This issue is about a moral/religious belief. And yes I think that makes it quite different than traffic tickets or robbery or even murder.  Everyone agrees that killing a person is morally wrong.   Just read through this thread.  There is no consensus on when an embryo becomes a person.  It is all speculation.  Why should someone’s speculation be legally forced on those that disagree.

Certainty  you can see the difference between most laws and a law based solely on speculation.   Can you name one other law that is completely based on speculation that takes rights away from a citizen to make a decision that affects their own body?

While I am personally against abortion, until there is some kind of rational proof, I am not willing to force my speculation on to someone else.   

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, california boy said:

I totally agree, which is why I think it is unjust to force by law, your own personal beliefs onto another.  To believe that every abortion is murder means that you believe that every stillborn embryo was murdered by God.  That makes God the worse monster and murderer one could conceive of.  And what about all of those stillborn embryos?  What about those invetro fertilized eggs? Do they get a body? Ever?  And if they do get a body eventually, then were they murdered?  

While people may have opinions on all of this, I doubt anyone can answer the implications of those beliefs.

I don't know if we could jump to the conclusion that assumed the deaths were condoned by God would mean we believe God's a monster. After all we also believe in a flood that annihilated all the people sans one extended family. I'm sure people could find a way to make it admissible while maintaining a pro-life stance. 

But I think the questions you ask are likely why I do not see myself as pro-life or pro-choice. Which would mean I somewhat disagree with your first statement as well. At some point the implication of both simplified beliefs become a problem. For example on the pro-choice issue....does this mean that people in India should be able to use ultrasounds to determine sex so they can abort female children? It may go against my or your personal beliefs, but it doesn't the people who are wanting these done. So by this logic, we should allow it despite some serious long-term problems this leads to as a whole. Should special needs children, who could live a full, though different life, be aborted and virtually disappear from our societies (as is happening in iceland with downs children)?  Maybe this doesn't have as great of an immediate effect as aborting based on gender, but it's still something of a concern and the decision one way or another is often based in moral and value systems. And indeed allowing said practices would likely form and shape later value systems. 

For the record, when I say balancing pragmatism and compassion towards life, I don't mean that there should be no limitations to abortion. I do, particularly after the point viability (roughly 23 weeks). I think the amount of legislation should be limited ....but I still think it should be there. For example, allowance of abortion based on personal decision sans unwanted though generally harmless traits pre 20 weeks and abortions for medical reasons allowed post 20....while making it more feasible for mothers in difficult circumstances to feel like they actually have a choice in keeping and supporting their child through assistance programs. This would not be considered, in our current climate, pro-life or pro-choice, but somewhere in between.  

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

This issue is about a moral/religious belief. And yes I think that makes it quite different than traffic tickets or robbery or even murder.  Everyone agrees that killing a person is morally wrong.   Just read through this thread.  There is no consensus on when an embryo becomes a person.  It is all speculation. 

So robbery and murder are not moral beliefs and are based on scientific realities 

Great logic yet again

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

This issue is about a moral/religious belief. And yes I think that makes it quite different than traffic tickets or robbery or even murder.  Everyone agrees that killing a person is morally wrong.   Just read through this thread.  There is no consensus on when an embryo becomes a person.  It is all speculation.  Why should someone’s speculation be legally forced on those that disagree.

Certainty  you can see the difference between most laws and a law based solely on speculation.   Can you name one other law that is completely based on speculation that takes rights away from a citizen to make a decision that affects their own body?

While I am personally against abortion, until there is some kind of rational proof, I am not willing to force my speculation on to someone else.   

Anyone from a cannibal tribe want to comment?

How about a Nazi or two?

How do you defend your rational proof against those folks?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I have brought this up before but the hypocrisy in this debate annoys me. If life and humanity begins at conception why are we allowing so many people to die “naturally” without trying to prevent it. About 10 to 15% of detected pregnancies end in miscarriage and there are suspected to be three or four times as many miscarriages that occur without the mother realizing they are pregnant in the first month. If these are human lives why are we so blasé about their failure? The numbers mean 30%+ of pregnancies fail and we let it happen. Why are we not doing something? This makes miscarriage the most common cause of death amongst humans and we have no mobilized our medical resources to do anything about it. Why not?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have brought this up before but the hypocrisy in this debate annoys me. If life and humanity begins at conception why are we allowing so many people to die “naturally” without trying to prevent it. About 10 to 15% of detected pregnancies end in miscarriage and there are suspected to be three or four times as many miscarriages that occur without the mother realizing they are pregnant in the first month. If these are human lives why are we so blasé about their failure? The numbers mean 30%+ of pregnancies fail and we let it happen. Why are we not doing something? This makes miscarriage the most common cause of death amongst humans and we have no mobilized our medical resources to do anything about it. Why not?

If you have known anyone trying to get pregnant who has experienced miscarriages, I would hardly call the reaction “blasé”.  It is felt as a real loss and can be emotionally devastating.  

Contrary to your accusations.  Lots of research has been done on miscarriages and preventive measures.  Preventing miscarriage is not like preventing a single disease and does not have a single cause.  The causes of miscarriage are extremely varied, but the most common cause are chromosomal defects that make them nonviable.  The issue could be environmental or could be related to other health issues of the fetus or the mother.  The problem is that once you know that there is a problem, it is too late.  It is impossible to predict what might cause any single miscarriage and therefore is nearly impossible to prevent as prevention could be different for each case.  Having said that, there are preventive measures any expecting mother can take to generally reduce risk on her end.

The other problem is that very few medications are considered safe during pregnancy.  Testing new medications to prevent miscarriages can lead to ethical issues.  Just do a little research on DES and see why ethical issues in new drug treatments must be considered.

Because the causes may be unpredictable, prevention can equally be unpredictable and impossible in most cases of genetic defects leading to a nonviable fetus.

To day we don’t care is not fair, to say we have not tried is unfair.  I think you are oversimplifying miscarriage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you have known anyone trying to get pregnant who has experienced miscarriages, I would hardly call the reaction “blasé”.  It is felt as a real loss and can be emotionally devastating.  

Contrary to your accusations.  Lots of research has been done on miscarriages and preventive measures.  Preventing miscarriage is not like preventing a single disease and does not have a single cause.  The causes of miscarriage are extremely varied, but the most common cause are chromosomal defects that make them nonviable.  The issue could be environmental or could be related to other health issues of the fetus or the mother.  The problem is that once you know that there is a problem, it is too late.  It is impossible to predict what might cause any single miscarriage and therefore is nearly impossible to prevent as prevention could be different for each case.  Having said that, there are preventive measures any expecting mother can take to generally reduce risk on her end.

The other problem is that very few medications are considered safe during pregnancy.  Testing new medications to prevent miscarriages can lead to ethical issues.  Just do a little research on DES and see why ethical issues in new drug treatments must be considered.

Because the causes may be unpredictable, prevention can equally be unpredictable and impossible in most cases of genetic defects leading to a nonviable fetus.

To day we don’t care is not fair, to say we have not tried is unfair.  I think you are oversimplifying miscarriage.

I am not talking exclusively or even mostly about later miscarriages. I am talking about those the mother does not even notice. The reality is in those cases we do not care. We do not notice.

You state as well that there is nothing we can do. That is true of most diseases and physical and mental afflictions until we hunker down and spend time and money to figure it out. Little to nothing is being done to find ways to prevent miscarriages, especially the ones no one notices. If we are consistent that those are life we are very blasé.

And yes, mothers who have miscarriages can be traumatized by it. Sometimes fathers and others as well but even then very few treat it the way they would if a born child had died. And again, if the mother does not even notice the miscarriage we care nothing at all. If those are lives why are we not screening for them? Studying why they are unviable and devoting massive resources to finding ways to prevent this holocaust? Because we do not care that much.

This uncaring attitude is true in a lot of arenas in life. Everyone says they support special education for children, resources for the orphans and the mentally disabled and the like but their words are hollow. When you see the struggle to find a bed for a suicidal teen to sleep in for a night or to pay for basic medical care to diagnose a disturbed child in great pain you realize how little anyone cares where the rubber meets the road. When is the last time a politician campaigned on spending money in these arenas?

I find abortion detestable but we are not consistent if we insist life and personhood begins at conception and then act like that fact only matters when a mother intervenes to end a pregnancy. I support legalizing abortion because I do not trust government to regulate it and developing a society where life is venerated to the point that abortion is only a last-case decisions for the traumatized or physically threatened. Then I want that principle carried through and life mattering after it is born as well. As it stands the political abortion debate appears to me to be a bunch of virtue signaling douchebaggery on both sides.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So robbery and murder are not moral beliefs and are based on scientific realities 

Great logic yet again

The punishment for robbery and murder are agreed upon moral beliefs that society as a whole are not divided on and are not based on speculation.  Seriously, you can't see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Anyone from a cannibal tribe want to comment?

How about a Nazi or two?

How do you defend your rational proof against those folks?

Goodwin's Law and cannibalism.  Please.  You have to resort to that to find support for your position?  If that is what it takes to support your speculation preference over another's then, I think there is not much of a real argument to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not talking exclusively or even mostly about later miscarriages. I am talking about those the mother does not even notice. The reality is in those cases we do not care. We do not notice.

You state as well that there is nothing we can do. That is true of most diseases and physical and mental afflictions until we hunker down and spend time and money to figure it out. Little to nothing is being done to find ways to prevent miscarriages, especially the ones no one notices. If we are consistent that those are life we are very blasé.

And yes, mothers who have miscarriages can be traumatized by it. Sometimes fathers and others as well but even then very few treat it the way they would if a born child had died. And again, if the mother does not even notice the miscarriage we care nothing at all. If those are lives why are we not screening for them? Studying why they are unviable and devoting massive resources to finding ways to prevent this holocaust? Because we do not care that much.

This uncaring attitude is true in a lot of arenas in life. Everyone says they support special education for children, resources for the orphans and the mentally disabled and the like but their words are hollow. When you see the struggle to find a bed for a suicidal teen to sleep in for a night or to pay for basic medical care to diagnose a disturbed child in great pain you realize how little anyone cares where the rubber meets the road. When is the last time a politician campaigned on spending money in these arenas?

I find abortion detestable but we are not consistent if we insist life and personhood begins at conception and then act like that fact only matters when a mother intervenes to end a pregnancy. I support legalizing abortion because I do not trust government to regulate it and developing a society where life is venerated to the point that abortion is only a last-case decisions for the traumatized or physically threatened. Then I want that principle carried through and life mattering after it is born as well. As it stands the political abortion debate appears to me to be a bunch of virtue signaling douchebaggery on both sides.

I too was mostly talking about early miscarriages.  Again, the vast majority of them are the result of genetic defects.  If you could find a way to prevent harmful genetic mutations, you’d be a bazillionare and would be responsible for preventing unwanted miscarriages, but you’d also be responsible for ending genetic diseases all together!  There is every financial and moral motivation to find a prevention against genetic defects - so you can’t say we don’t care, it’s that we don’t have any answers, at least ones that don’t carry significant moral implications.  Once you start messing with human genes, people have serious problems with it...as one Chinese scientist recently found out.  I assume you know what I am talking about.

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Goodwin's Law and cannibalism.  Please.  You have to resort to that to find support for your position?  If that is what it takes to support your speculation preference over another's then, I think there is not much of a real argument to be made.

No real argument?

Just one that has stood for 300 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Try to defend lifestyles that were illegal until a few years ago using your logic.

All there is, is social convention and you should be the first to recognize that

Putting it bluntly you leave yourself wide open to a natural law argument against homosexuality. 

I mean are we advocates for "diversity" or not?

And that context every moral decision is "speculation" anyway.

Who's to say that any long-standing morality is valid just because it's longstanding?

Does that makes the problem more clear?

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...