Inherent Value of life (secular)

[PRmerger]

Ableism ableism - Google Search:

ableism - Google Search​

YoungSheldon

    March 18

PRmerger:
We are not given personhood based on what we can “do”…but rather on who we are.

And how do you hope to discern what someone “is”, unless you are able to observe what they “do”?

Remember: “nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu”. The brain function is either there, or not. A simple EEG can detect it. A corpse has a non-functioning brain, so it ceases to be a person. It does not mean that a genius is “more person” than an imbecile with an IQ of 60. There is nothing “ableism” about it. (Did you just invent this “ableism”? I never heard of it.)

I would have preferred to see an actual response to my line of argument about removal/replacement of the organs of the body - and especially about the significance of the operation of the brain. Because that is the “meat” of the problem - and the brain is NOT the organ to cool the blood, despite what Aristotle said.

 

[PRmerger]

You discern what someone “is” by adverting to defined criteria.

So, an organism is a person when it is a member of the human race.

And…one becomes a member of the human race when a new human organism is formed…which science tells us, incontrovertibly, occurs at fertilization.


YoungSheldon

    March 18

PRmerger:
We are not given personhood based on what we can “do”…but rather on who we are.

And how do you hope to discern what someone “is”, unless you are able to observe what they “do”?

Remember: “nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu”. The brain function is either there, or not. A simple EEG can detect it. A corpse has a non-functioning brain, so it ceases to be a person. It does not mean that a genius is “more person” than an imbecile with an IQ of 60. There is nothing “ableism” about it. (Did you just invent this “ableism”? I never heard of it.)

I would have preferred to see an actual response to my line of argument about removal/replacement of the organs of the body - and especially about the significance of the operation of the brain. Because that is the “meat” of the problem - and the brain is NOT the organ to cool the blood, despite what Aristotle said.

 

[fhansen]

Everyone already knows it. That’s why we spontaneously show respect to humans, as long as we haven’t had our consciences eroded or dimmed too much-which is rapidly occurring in a confused and cynical world.

 

[PRmerger]

Functioning brain–meaning, what, exactly?

 

[PRmerger]

And you are correct that “personhood” is not limited to humanity. (Remember, the dogma of the Trinity and what it proclaims).

And why is “sapience” that which makes an organism a person?

 

[PRmerger]

So, a 1 day old newborn baby, who has no ability to create models of reality, is not a person?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I think that’s reaaalllly stretttccchiiinggg the definition, but, ok.

That would then mean that a 9 week old fetus is sapient as well…so…


YoungSheldon

    March 18

PRmerger:
So, a 1 day old newborn baby, who has no ability to create models of reality, is not a person?

Sure is. It creates a very simple model of reality. Just like a seriously disabled person, who can only perform a limited amount of activities, is still a person.

 

[PRmerger]

Cool. Then we would be agreed that abortions, which kill an innocent human person, are wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, I’m all for moral ways to solve problems.

 

[jochoa]

Interesting questions!

I wonder if the recognition of discovering the value of people previously unknown might demonstrate the value of every life.

When one takes a moment to recognize the countless and unknown lives who have contributed and will contribute to making life more peaceable and enjoyable for all, then one can recognize how clueless one was to the value of every life, both known and unknown.

 

[PRmerger]

LOL! No one has proposed moral behavior as an abstraction.

Moral behavior is contingent upon many things, including the act itself, the intentions/motivations of the agent, the situation.

But I think we would be agreed that anyone here who is arguing for his opinion on morality would, necessarily, eschew a subjectivist approach to morality, yes?


YoungSheldon

    March 18

PRmerger:
Sure, I’m all for moral ways to solve problems.

Uh-oh. Unfortunately there is no such thing as “moral” behavior as an abstraction. Moral behavior is contingent upon the ethical system one subscribes to. And there are many, mutually contradictory ethical systems. For example: deontological system, divine command system, virtue based system, duty based system, utilitarian system, and a whole lot of others.

And remember, this thread attempts to deal with the secular aspects of life, so you should not try to smuggle in the Catholic concept of morality. Of course you are free to do so, but then we shall lose the common ground we seem to have established so far.

 

[Bradskii]

So, a few cells is not a person…What is a person, in your opinion?

And do you think, then, that personhood is somehow gained by getting bigger, or growing older?

Also, if you’re not sure if that’s a tiny human person in there (it may be still just a clump of cells, but, according to you, at some point it turns into a person with value who shouldn’t be killed), shouldn’t the default position be: do not kill that organism since we’re not sure if it’s a person? After all, if you’re hunting in the woods, and see a shadow, and you’re not sure if it’s a person, or your bear, wouldn’t the judicious thing to do would be to NOT shoot, just in case it actually is a person?

Just a heads up on replying in this new forum: When you hit ‘Reply’ you’ll get a dialogue box where you type your response. At the top left of that box there is an icon that looks like a speech bubble. If you click that then the whole of the text in the post to which you are responding will appear in quotes.

You can leave it as-is or delete any part of the original which isn’t applicable to your reply. Add your comments beneath this. When you have written what you need to, hit ‘Reply’ in the blue box at bottom left and the new post will appear with the previous comments highlighted in a grey box prefixed by the original poster’s name

Everyone can then see to whom you are responding and what they wrote.

And there’s an extra ‘i’ because I lost my original log-in when the new forum started up. I had to rejoin and I couldn’t with my original name.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger:

So, a few cells is not a person…What is a person, in your opinion?

And do you think, then, that personhood is somehow gained by getting bigger, or growing older?

Also, if you’re not sure if that’s a tiny human person in there (it may be still just a clump of cells, but, according to you, at some point it turns into a person with value who shouldn’t be killed), shouldn’t the default position be: do not kill that organism since we’re not sure if it’s a person? After all, if you’re hunting in the woods, and see a shadow, and you’re not sure if it’s a person, or your bear, wouldn’t the judicious thing to do would be to NOT shoot, just in case it actually is a person?

Just a heads up on replying in this new forum: When you hit ‘Reply’ you’ll get a dialogue box where you type your response. At the top left of that box there is an icon that looks like a speech bubble. If you click that then the whole of the text in the post to which you are responding will appear in quotes.

You can leave it as-is or delete any part of the original which isn’t applicable to your reply. Add your comments beneath this. When you have written what you need to, hit ‘Reply’ in the blue box at bottom left and the new post will appear with the previous comments highlighted in a grey box prefixed by the original poster’s name

Everyone can then see to whom you are responding and what they wrote.

And there’s an extra ‘i’ because I lost my original log-in when the new forum started up. I had to rejoin and I couldn’t with my original name.

Ah…I see. Very good. Thanks for the tutorial.

And for letting me know that I was not misspelling your name all these years.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger:

But I think we would be agreed that anyone here who is arguing for his opinion on morality would, necessarily, eschew a subjectivist approach to morality, yes?

I deny the concept of objective “morality”. The morality of any ACT is contingent upon ethical system. The act of someone who kills civilians is called “freedom fight” or “terrorism”, depending upon the point of view of the observer.

However this is a deviation. My question was about how to avoid abortions? What kind of process do you propose to achieve that very noble goal? Can you give an answer?

I use the same process I use to encourage moms not to kill their 2 year old toddlers…even if they’re poor, and just lost their job, and their partner is an addict who just left home with their life savings.

What about you?

 

[Bradskii]

PRmerger:

I use the same process I use to encourage moms not to kill their 2 year old toddlers…even if they’re poor, and just lost their job, and their partner is an addict who just left home with their life savings.

What about you?

What does that have to do with anything? We already agreed that there is no human person until the brain develops, approximately 9 weeks. We also agreed that human persons should not be aborted.

Ne next question is: what method would you employ to make unwanted pregnancies to be as rare (preferably nonexistent) as possible. Trying to convince a woman to carry a pregnancy to term does not make the pregnancy nonexistent.

Since you asked, here is my answer. Make sure that birth control is as effective as possible. Encourage the use of the best (most efficient) birth control techniques. (There are 100% efficient methods.) And if it still happens, use the morning after pill, or an abortion BEFORE that critical 9 week period expires. Let’s concentrate on developing better prevention methods.

There are two converstaions that I try to avoid in this forum. Gun control and abortion. Because the two obvious solutions to both problems are rejected out of handby the majority of posters.

Some members of society who really shouldn’t own guns end up killing people. Solution: Prevent them from owning guns in the first place. Rejected.

Some members of society who don’t want to get pregnant end up having abortions. Solution: Prevent them from getting pregnant in the first place (self administered contraception): Rejected.

We don’t live in a perfect world where there are black and white options. If one rejects obvious real-world solutions to a problem then the problem will persist.

 

[PRmerger]

Umm…brain activity is present at 5 weeks. Just a FYI.

 

[PRmerger]

And the method I would employ to make sure there are no unwanted pregnancies would be to educate society about the meaning of sexuality and marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, it’s weird then that you commented on a thread that deals with abortion.

I am only discussing it because I came back here looking for you…and this is the topic you chose to comment on.

 

[Bradskii]

And the method I would employ to make sure there are no unwanted pregnancies would be to educate society about the meaning of sexuality and marriage.

But that’s a simplistic solution that would work only in an ideal world. It’s the equivalent of saying that we should educate society about how bad it is to shoot people.

It’s a complete waste of time proffering answers to a problem that only the people who agree with you are going to accept.

And now I’m discussing both of the topics that I want to avoid in the one post…

Excuse me if I duck out of this and leave it to Sheldon.

 

[HarryStotle]

Indeed. But it is fun to see the convoluted “non-arguments” they bring up in defense of their indefensible positions.

Speaking of “indefensible,” you do realize that if the secular view of the world is true and the material universe is all there is then all our thoughts, emotions and values are merely chimeras conjured by biochemical reactions.

That would imply secular values are not really what they purport to be – not true and meaningful statements about the world but merely caused phenomena in our brains.

You don’t, on a secularist world view, actually value what is valuable for its sake, but because biochemical reactions in your brain cause you to “value” stuff.

Kind of undermines and makes indefensible – based upon a secularist’s own premises – the entire facade of secularist values. How embarrassing for the secularist.