posted
I don't think so. I'm not sure why that would be relevant, though, as an in vitro procedure with a cloned zygote would be presumably be treated the same as any other pregnancy -- i.e., it would be just as wrong (or not) to voluntarily abort it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me emphasize: I'm not trying to be a jackass or score a snippy point. I'm really concerned about how to puzzle through this.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the potential for independent thought is ultimately essential. I'm not sure if even sndrake would advocate keeping a brain-dead fetus on life support indefinitely on the grounds that it might wake up someday.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to say the potential to grow to its own independance, but you're right. That puts us back to a place where sndrake would have to soundly kick my rear.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think our concept of "human" is also inextricably tied up with the concept of "individual." A being who can never be an individual, by definition, is not considered human. And since the ability to make a decision is essential to our definition of individuality, a functional brain -- or at least a potentially functional brain -- is one of the first requirements.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope, I'm not... the death penalty is the deliberate killing of a person. If you're for banning abortion, you ALSO think this is deliberate killing of a person. If you want to make exceptions for vengeance, but can't make other exceptions, you're a hypocrit. Well, either that or bloodthirsty.
Of course, by this logic, all exceptions must be allowed if any is. Which is patently absurd.
You have problems with a particular exception, yet want to grant another one. I have problems with the one you support, yet am in theory OK with the one you oppose. (Assuming you oppose the death penalty - if not,for purposes of illustration, pick a mythical "you" who supports abortion rights but opposes the death penalty.)
There are certainly reasons other than hypocrisy and blood lust to support a particular exception to a general moral rule. Otherwise, every moral system is based on hypocrisy and blood lust.
posted
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. And thanks for not just assuming I'm being a jerk. I appreciate both efforts, believe me.
I have to go do some job-work and answer some emails, but I'll give it some more time and come back later with more questions (which any given person can chime in or not, no matter).
quote:Oh, KoM. Let me explain-- this is a bulletin board. Not a chat room. When someone doesn't reply immediately to your posts, it may simply mean that they are heading out to dinner with their spouse, and have no time to address any of your points in a serious, thoughtful manner.
I did give you a fair amount of time to respond, and I believe I asked quite politely whether or not you wanted to continue the discussion. I do not think it entirely reasonable to accuse me of demanding instant answers.
quote:We agree that even our society has defined acceptable ways and whens to kill certain people.
But you miss the fact that murder is a whole 'nother bird entirely.
Here I think you need to define your terms. I am using 'murder' to mean 'killing humans', with 'humans' defined as above : Whatever I'm pointing at when I use the term. It seems to me that you are using 'murder' to mean 'killing that is against the law', which I don't think is a useful definition in this case, since it is then tautological to say that civilisations disapprove of it. So how are you defining murder?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I appreciate both efforts, believe me.
