UK Article - Seriously?

[_just me]

The religionist, otoh, demands that life be protected simply because it's life. Life is enough.

Well, unless god tells you to kill it. Then it is best not to protect life. But that is a whole 'nother topic.

I'll be back after church. I'm certainly not going to comment on something until I've read the whole thing.

[_Hoops]

Well, unless god tells you to kill it. Then it is best not to protect life. But that is a whole 'nother topic.

I'll be back after church. I'm certainly not going to comment on something until I've read the whole thing.

Yep. Right on cue.

[_just me]

An article in the United Kingdom Telegraph.

Wow! I was blown away!

What say you?

Peace,
Ceeboo

I have decided against commenting on this particular topic. I will not be returning to this thread, either.

I will just say that it is my prayer that we will each give some thought to exactly what we are doing and saying each time we vote against taxes that would go to help disabled people.

[_Hoops]

I'll quote myself here.

Let's see how consistent the aah's on this board are really willing to be. That sound you hear is the clippety-clop hoofbeats of a furious retreat. But then they're left with explaining why.

.

[_EAllusion]

This is a story about the article. Actual article? And I'm going to go out on a limb and assume this is not the mainstream opinion of ethicists.

It's within the mainstream. Defensible ideas about what constitutes personhood tend to leave infants in a grey zone. People come down on either side. I say yes, but perfectly respectable people disagree.

[_EAllusion]

Morality is simply a function of a highly ordered society and therefor there is no moral imperative to life until that life can contribute in a meaningful way.

This has nothing to do with their reasoning. It's rather based in cognitive development.

The religionist, otoh, demands that life be protected simply because it's life. Life is enough.

So you think it is immoral to kill all life? Including bacteria and mold? And you further assert this is the opinion of all religious people on the planet?

[_Hoops]

This has nothing to do with their reasoning. It's rather based in cognitive development.

Yes, I got that as well. Still, they've concluded (or asserted) that this form of infanticide is morally neutral. That moral framework appears to be taken from what I've stated above. Perhaps I'm wrong.

So you think it is immoral to kill all life?

No, that's not what I wrote. Clearly, sometimes lives are taken to protect others. I agree that it's a difficult line to walk, but at least religionists are willing to walk it.

Including bacteria and mold?

Biblically speaking, that's not life.

And you further assert this is the opinion of all religious people on the planet?

I don't think I've done that. I don't think I've ever done that. I rarely, if ever, claim to speak for anyone but myself. I will, on occassion, try to explain the position of others, but I don't speak for them.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, I got that as well. Still, they've concluded (or asserted) that this form of infanticide is morally neutral. That moral framework appears to be taken from what I've stated above. Perhaps I'm wrong.

You're wrong. You can read the PDF. The gist of their reasoning turns on the idea that an infant having its life ended does not impede its aims and therefore does not constitute harm to it.

No, that's not what I wrote. Clearly, sometimes lives are taken to protect others. I agree that it's a difficult line to walk, but at least religionists are willing to walk it.

There are all manner of things that are alive that you do not accord the respect of personhood. That was my point. You try to speak for "religionists" despite their being a vast array of views among the religious on what sorts of living things deserve respect and why.

Biblically speaking, that's not life.

It's alive. Maybe you need to define life, biblically speaking, to communicate what it is you are asserting.

[_Hoops]

You're wrong.

I don't think so.

You can read the PDF.

I did.

The gist of their reasoning turns on the idea that an infant having its life ended does not impede its aims and therefore does not constitute harm to it.

I understand their reasoning. I'm simply drawing a logical line from their statements to where one might presume their support derives.

There are all manner of things that are alive that you do not accord the respect of personhood. That was my point.

Yes, I suppose. If by all manner you mean humans and animals.

You try to speak for "religionists"

I phrase it that way to avoid the inevitable "but what about...?" and "That's not what..."

despite their being a vast array of views among the religious

Of course.

It's alive.

Not to a Christian. Or, more specifically, a fundamentalist Christian (I'm sure you'll be able to assign all manner of nefarious thinking to that group. You'll be wrong, of course, but you will)

Maybe you need to define life, biblically speaking, to communicate what it is you are asserting.

I assumed you knew. Here it is:

Genesis 1:30
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.”

3.Genesis 6:17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Genesis 6:16-18 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)
4.Genesis 7:15
Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

[_EAllusion]

[quot I understand their reasoning. I'm simply drawing a logical line from their statements to where one might presume their support derives.

It's already plainly spelled out. I suppose if you aren't used to reading ethics you might not understanding why defining harm in terms of thwarting aims is a standard position, but otherwise it's all there. You are drawing a completely incorrect conclusion. That it seems logical to you is unfortunate, but also of no help.

Yes, I suppose.

You don't, for a second, believe that all life is worth protecting. I don't take you for a hardcore vegan, but even if you were, you still don't think that because non-animal life is still alive. You're not a Jainist.

I assumed you knew. Here it is:

That adds no clarity whatsoever. Bacteria and mold have the "breath of life." If you mean only species that engage in respiration - which is utterly bizarre - that's still true of bacteria and mold. But we could change our examples from worms to grass to anything that's alive. "Life" is an exceptionally poor criterion for personhood - one you absolutely do not actually believe in - and one that is far more poorly thought out that what this article is about.