Stem-Cell Research

  • Thread starter Thread starter vincent10395
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just throwing something out here…

If there were some disease that affected all women so that they couldn’t become pregnant UNLESS they took a specific pill (then nature would roll the dice as per usual), then wouldn’t that solve all our problems?

Catholics wouldn’t have to take it as God might instigate a miracle, so all sexual unions would be open to conception even without it, and no-one would get pregnant unless they specifically wanted to.
 
neophyte said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Those two statements are completely different. And only one of them is correct.
Click to expand...
Both are correct.
Click to expand...
I have assumed that you were talking human value as opposed to value in the eyes of God.
 
Bradskii said:
I have assumed that you were talking human value as opposed to value in the eyes of God.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Do you think that our value in God’s eyes is somehow different than our value as humans? That seems incoherent to me, since they are the same thing.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
40.png
Bradskii:
I have assumed that you were talking human value as opposed to value in the eyes of God.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Do you think that our value in God’s eyes is somehow different than our value as humans? That seems incoherent to me, since they are the same thing.
Click to expand...
Would you rather save the man who murdered one daughter rather than save the other?

Value is relative.
 
How we feel about others is relative, but that doesn’t mean one’s inherent value is relative. Just because one would be more likely to save the innocent man doesn’t necessarily mean the innocent man is inherently more valuable.
[/quote]

How we feel about each other defines value (you are not as valuable to me as my wife). Maybe you have another view.
 
Bradskii said:
Would you rather save the man who murdered one daughter rather than save the other?

Value is relative.
Click to expand...
You’re equivocating. The issue is the intrinsic value of each individual human being, and the fact that if no human being has intrinsic value or unalienable rights until after he’s born (or has a heartbeat, or brain waves, or some other thing you wish to pick), then no human being has intrinsic value or unalienable rights at all.
 
neophyte said:
40.png
Bradskii:
How we feel about each other defines value
Click to expand...
So if I value a sum of money more than I value you, it’s okay for me to kill you to get it?
Click to expand...
You should look up ‘false dilema’. You can certainly value money over my life but taking it to the point of killing me would be another matter.

What you should be asking yourself is what sum of money would you consider to be enough to prevent my death. A few dollars? All that you have? All that you and your family and friends have?

Who gets the $20,000? Your daughter with a lifetime in front of her or the octogenerian with a few years left? These aren’t easy decisions to make but to deny that there are ways to resolve them is nonsensical.
 
My view is that our inherent value comes from how God sees us. So even if we might value each other differently, our inherent value stays the same because God’s value on us is our inherent value, as God is our creator.
[/quote]

Maybe neophyte will come to realise that.
 
Bradskii said:
You should look up ‘false dilema’.
Click to expand...
There’s no dilemma. You said that how we feel about each other defines our value; if that’s true and I value money and don’t value you at all, why shouldn’t I kill you to get it?
Bradskii said:
You can certainly value money over my life but taking it to the point of killing me would be another matter.
Click to expand...
So then our value is defined by something other than how we feel about each other after all? Make up your mind.
Bradskii said:
Maybe neophyte will come to realise that.
Click to expand...
What in the world makes you think I don’t? It’s what I’ve been saying, and what you’ve been arguing against: our value derives from the fact that we are human beings, not because of how other people feel about us. Since we are human beings from the moment of conception, we therefore have intrinsic value and unalienable rights from that moment on. If we don’t have intrinsic value and unalienable rights from that moment on, then by definition they don’t exist.
 
Last edited:
So if you consider each of us to be equal in value, answer the questions. Shouldn’t be hard to do:

What sum of money would you consider to be enough to prevent my death. A few dollars? All that you have? All that you and your family and friends have?

Who gets the $20,000 for the life saving medical treatment? Your daughter with a lifetime in front of her or the octogenerian with a few years left?

I’ll help you out to save you some typing.

As far as the first goes, there will be an amount. What it is depends on you. You would pay a dollar to save my life but giving up everything you own would make you pause for thought. After all, what is more valuable to you: A roof over your family’s head, a secure future for your children and food on the table or the life of someone you don’t know.

And the second? Well, one doesn’t need to be a psychology major to know that you would choose your daughter over the old guy. Because her life is more…what was the word? Ah yes, valuable to you.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
So if you consider each of us to be equal in value, answer the questions.
Click to expand...
You’re asking questions that aren’t pertinent to the topic. Pertinent questions go along the lines of “can I kill you in order to save my daughter”, “can I kill my unborn child because I’ll be unable to care for it after it’s born” and “can I create a human being in order to kill it”. The answer to all such questions is no, for the reasons I’ve already provided.
 
Yes, I am. Again, Nephyte is missing that distinction.
 
Last edited:
It can’t be clearer. The questions I am asking attempt to define the difference between the claimed inherent value of each of us as humans and the value we place on each other as individuals. If we don’t realise there is a difference then we will indeed talk past each other.
 
Actually, the Church has not defined when ensoulment takes place.

At conception, human life begins. We respect life from conception until natural death.

Ensoulment is something for the theologians to debate.
 
Personally, I find the “personhood” argument to be more political.

Human life is human life. A human being. Two cells or a 102 year old woman who cannot see or hear or speak or walk, both are human life.
 
Bradskii said:
It can’t be clearer. The questions I am asking attempt to define the difference between the claimed inherent value of each of us as humans and the value we place on each other as individuals. If we don’t realise there is a difference then we will indeed talk past each other.
Click to expand...
I understand the distinction. I’m insisting that we maintain the focus on inherent value and unalienable rights, because that’s what’s pertinent to the issue (as I’ve repeatedly said). What you refer to as “the value we place on each other as individuals” is totally irrelevant (as has also been repeatedly said).
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
Actually, the Church has not defined when ensoulment takes place.

At conception, human life begins.
Click to expand...
The Church hasn’t seen any need to define it, probably because it has a known definition. The soul is the principle that animates a living body, so by definition a human being has a human soul from the moment of conception. But that’s merely an aside to the issue.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top