• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump to expand Hobby Lobby to "moral convictions"

ConnorEl said:
?

You think theology is necessary to value human life? Or for morality generally?

And I haven't dismissed scientific contributions towards understanding consciousness. Just irrelevant to the points I'm making.
Click to expand...

Theology is necessary, IMO, to value non-sentient human life any more than other forms of non-sentient life. At best a human fetus is analogous to a permanently brain dead human. Although technically alive in the biological sense neither is presently capable of experiencing a type of life that is unique to humans or worthy of special moral treatment.
 
sailordeac said:
If you define the beginning of life at any point other than the moment of conception, then you are running the risk of defining life to suit your convenience.

We don't always appreciate that St. Thomas Aquinas often sought compromise solutions to vexing intellectual problems. His thoughts on abortion are a case in point. He believed that soul enters the body 40 days after conception and that was the beginning of life.
Click to expand...



not quoted but invoking nonetheless
 
RChildress107 said:
Theology is necessary, IMO, to value non-sentient human life any more than other forms of non-sentient life. At best a human fetus is analogous to a permanently brain dead human. Although technically alive in the biological sense neither is presently capable of experiencing a type of life that is unique to humans or worthy of special moral treatment.
Click to expand...

No.

Brain death is considered an unalterable or unrecoverable state. The fetus will thrive and become your precious sentient person in most cases unless intentionally prevented from doing so.

If it only matters whether an organism is presently sentient then lots of folks who have been valued or might again be valued will be out of luck.

Theology is not required to determine to value human life before birth. Or apart from present or past sentience.

We can simply choose to value human life, recognize that it begins before birth, and value the protection of weaker and more dependent forms of human life. Because of empathy, justice, sociological considerations, etc.

Assigning characteristics necessary to be valued, or denying value to other humans on the basis of arbitrarily constructed measures is not the purview of science. It certainly can be within the realm of theology, philosophy, ethics or morality.
 
warak said:
If you don't think that your "moral convictions" are not based on the Religion that you parents conscripted upon you (in most cases), then you are just making a point that you have no counterpoint in the argument. Also, if you are so obtuse that you cannot see that the Republicans are making legislation based on religion, Christianity mostly as noted throughout this thread, then you are not really paying attention. I don't think that is the case.
Click to expand...

Nor have I invoked my moral conviction.

What exactly is your argument?
 
sailordeac said:
St. Thomas is not in the Bible. Lived 1200 years after the NT. And I did not quote him. Other than that you have a fine post.
Click to expand...

You are being silly, St Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic Priest and later given Saint-hood by the Catholic Church. He is described as a Scriptural Theologian, among other things. I don't see how to separate Aquinas from the Catholic Church...most of his works discus the Christian faith, existence of God, Christ, etc.
 
sailordeac said:
Nor have I invoked my moral conviction.

What exactly is your argument?
Click to expand...

Then you should not be posting in the thread concerning "moral convictions", in which Abortion and non-secular issues are being discussed.

What the fuck do you want then?
 
warak said:
You are being silly, St Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic Priest and later given Saint-hood by the Catholic Church. He is described as a Scriptural Theologian, among other things. I don't see how to separate Aquinas from the Catholic Church...most of his works discus the Christian faith, existence of God, Christ, etc.
Click to expand...

You are being worse than silly; you are being ridiculous. I did not bring up St. Thomas, someone else did. I merely slightly elaborated on his views on the beginning of life. I am not aware that his view on the beginning of life was based on the Bible. Please offer proof, if this is your assertion. The medieval church was based on other sources as well: the fathers, the traditions, etc.

To believe that the medieval western church or any Christian church is entirely Biblical is simply farcical.
 
ConnorEl said:
No.

Brain death is considered an unalterable or unrecoverable state. The fetus will thrive and become your precious sentient person in most cases unless intentionally prevented from doing so.

If it only matters whether an organism is presently sentient then lots of folks who have been valued or might again be valued will be out of luck.

Theology is not required to determine to value human life before birth. Or apart from present or past sentience.

We can simply choose to value human life, recognize that it begins before birth, and value the protection of weaker and more dependent forms of human life. Because of empathy, justice, sociological considerations, etc.

Assigning characteristics necessary to be valued, or denying value to other humans on the basis of arbitrarily constructed measures is not the purview of science. It certainly can be within the realm of theology, philosophy, ethics or morality.
Click to expand...

Ugh.

1. "The fetus will thrive unless intentionally prevented from doing so" takes is one of the worst in the abortion debate, especially coming from someone who has never carried a child. The fetus won't do shit unless continuously nurtured by its host mother for 9 months. Potential to become a person does not = a person. Until that potential becomes actual it is and should be entirely in the control of the mother (to the extent people have control over anything).

2. Presently sentient =/= presently capable of sentience.

3. We can simply choose to do anything, doesn't mean there is a rational basis for it. I have yet to hear a non-theological argument for valuing human life that is incapable of any qualities which make humans unique. In Cartesian terms, why value a human body, animate or otherwise, that has no soul. I'd love to hear a non-theological explanation if you have one.

4. As a philosophical matter human =\= person and vice versa. There is nothing arbitrary about defining personhood based on a certain level of consciousness/self awareness. There may be an arbitrariness in defining the exact level of consciousness/awareness required (which is why I haven't attempted to do so) but that's not relevant for this discussion. On one extreme you could define personhood in a way that excludes infants and certain severely mentally handicapped, on the other extreme the definition might include some ape species or forms of artificial intelligence.

No definition of person based on consciousness/awareness (the very thing that sets human beings apart from all other life we have encountered) will include a fetus.
 
ConnorEl:

What is it that makes humans intrinsically valuable? Why should we demand to be treated better, to be held in higher regard, than a chimpanzee, or a dog, or an ant? What makes us special?

In non-theological terms.
 
1. A live fetus will naturally continue to live and develop your precious and arbitrarily constructed value. A brain dead human will otherwise die unless supported unnaturally. In fact, is considered dead at the moment brain death is determined. Not really the same things.

2. That depends. And so what?

3. We can determine to value human life merely because we are human ourselves. We may feel and think that a fetus has the right to its natural development. We may recognize social consequences of devaluing presently dependent human life. Etc.

4. Yes it is arbitrary. And, again, always to the advantage of those excluding others from the realm of the valued.
 
We decided individually and collectively what we value. No need for that value to be intrinsic. Not denying that intrinsic arguments can be made.
 
RChildress107 said:
ConnorEl:

What is it that makes humans intrinsically valuable? Why should we demand to be treated better, to be held in higher regard, than a chimpanzee, or a dog, or an ant? What makes us special?

In non-theological terms.
Click to expand...

we sent a man to the moon
 
ConnorEl said:
1. A live fetus will naturally continue to live and develop your precious and arbitrarily constructed value. A brain dead human will otherwise die unless supported unnaturally. In fact, is considered dead at the moment brain death is determined. Not really the same things.

2. That depends. And so what?

3. We can determine to value human life merely because we are human ourselves. We may feel and think that a fetus has the right to its natural development. We may recognize social consequences of devaluing presently dependent human life. Etc.

4. Yes it is arbitrary. And, again, always to the advantage of those excluding others from the realm of the valued.
Click to expand...

1. so if the mom stops eating the fetus is going to just hop on out and continue developing until it obtains consciousness?

2. No it doesn't depend. Those two sentences have two separate meanings and thus are not equal. So what? A fetus is neither, all humans from birth until brain death are at least one.

3. Care to present an argument for any of those statements? What is it about human life that is worth valuing? What is it about human life that makes it worth valuing above all other forms of life?

4. I'm beginning to think you don't understand the meaning of the word arbitrary.
 
ConnorEl said:
We decided individually and collectively what we value. No need for that value to be intrinsic. Not denying that intrinsic arguments can be made.
Click to expand...

A person has no intrinsic value that exists completely independent from society's views of that person? I disagree but fine.

For you individually, why did you decide that humans have value? Why did you decide that they have more value than a chimpanzee or a dog?
 
And of course that's the theological argument, that god has determined and revealed that humans are valuable.

But again, divine determination is unnecessary for us to make that determination ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top