Life obviously starts at conception, but the questions of personhood are different: Is a foetus a person with human rights ab initio? What is the legal significance of the heartbeat? Where and when does the soul come from? etc etc.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Presidential Election, Nov 5th 2024
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
threespires
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 6,155
- Team supported
- City
Fucking hell. I'm a Catholic (non practicing) and I don't know anyone who thinks we get 'injected' with a soul at birth. On the other hand I know plenty of people who believe that life begins at conception. i.e when sperm meets egg.
This was a topic of discussion in the Catholic church all the way up until the late 19th century when a 'settled' approach was decided and ever since then the hierarchy of the Catholic church has claimed it has always had a single definitive position throughout it's history.
There were a variety of ideas including when the 'quickening' took place and the Aristotlean view of 40 (?) days into the pregnancy (longer for girls I think!) was quite influential too.
Medical science has only made things more complex for many people, I've got a book on Catholic bioethics and it's got a whole variety of views on a wide range of issues.
Last edited:
TinFoilHat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 26,029
- Team supported
- Manchester City
He wanted unlimited power and the electorate have given him at least 2 years to save him ripping everything up with executive orders.And there it is... the Red trifecta.
The blue phantom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 8,704
But they are saying a heartbeat should never be stopped. Life is absolute a must. I'll have to find the clip of this pro lifers views who destroyed these cockwombles to their faces. It was a good watchIt's easy to work out if you just listen to the people who espouse those views. One involves an "innocent" the other involves someone who has been found "guilty" after an appropriate legal process.
The person convicted of a crime has an advocate who puts forward a defence and the crimes they commit often involve the taking of a life. There is also the position they see themselves in as the advocate of the baby in the womb.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,239
Makes it more difficult to blame the deep state, neoliberal elites, liberal judges etc etc when he fucks it all up. Won’t stop him trying and as long as he has his ministry of truth working properly led by Musk there’s more than a good chance he will continue to get away with it.He wanted unlimited power and the electorate have given him at least 2 years to save him ripping everything up with executive orders.
Maybe when people actually start dying because Obama care gets repealed and they can’t afford the replacement people will start to realise. Doubt it though.
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
I addressed that in an earlier post but it's to do with who provides the support - government or charitable organisations/individuals. I've heard it said that republicans give to charitable organisations at a significantly higher rate than democrats so I'll strongman the argument a little (making huuuuge generalisations) - it's much more caring and principled for me to support a family individually than it is for some faceless drone in an office to issue a welfare cheque.I don't find that one so hard to understand.
All are created equal, implies it doesn't stay that way.
Funnily enough these pro-lifers don't seem to care about the child after it's birth, as they are aren't usually in favour of decent welfare payments or pro family employment rights if it means they pay more in taxes or paychecks to employees.
That doesn't seem very principled.
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
In all these things there is a difference between a well thought through position and one that is parroted by someone who just knows the headlines.But they are saying a heartbeat should never be stopped. Life is absolute a must. I'll have to find the clip of this pro lifers views who destroyed these cockwombles to their faces. It was a good watch
If you want I can post a video to a link of famous left winger Destiny arguing that if a baby was born with no brain function it would be morally acceptable to keep that body alive to have sex with it. What a cockwomble
An argument should be assessed from it's strongest position and not it's weakest
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 16,841
I addressed that in an earlier post but it's to do with who provides the support - government or charitable organisations/individuals. I've heard it said that republicans give to charitable organisations at a significantly higher rate than democrats so I'll strongman the argument a little (making huuuuge generalisations) - it's much more caring and principled for me to support a family individually than it is for some faceless drone in an office to issue a welfare cheque.
It's a fudge. Welfare funding should in theory be more consistent and frequent than charitable handouts.
Charitable giving is more likely to go to their local church. It's not entirely altruistic in that sense, and the law is pretty generous in allowing chanchers and hucksters to operate charitable churches and pay themselves huge salaries.
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
The government isn't always doing better. It's widely known for example that the guy living in the whitehouse is a chancer and a huckster.It's a fudge. Welfare funding should in theory be more consistent and frequent than charitable handouts.
Charitable giving is more likely to go to their local church. It's not entirely altruistic in that sense, and the law is pretty generous in allowing chanchers and hucksters to operate charitable churches and pay themselves huge salaries.
For balance how would you judge the salary of the lady that runs Cancer Research UK?
BlueMoonAcrossThePond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 5,894
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Does it? Is not the cell or the sperm, alive? Would not scientists - having found something resembling a sperm - on another world - say Europa - rightly claim that they'd found life?Life obviously starts at conception, but the questions of personhood are different: Is a foetus a person with human rights ab initio? What is the legal significance of the heartbeat? Where and when does the soul come from? etc etc.
As a former catholic - and firm believer in science - I suppose what we're looking for is sentience. Can a being feel and know its surroundings. Perhaps that's the point at which abortion becomes unethical.
And yet, what about non-humans. Clearly animals feel and have sentience at some point in their lives.
It's a morally difficult question - but the notion of "soul" - IMO - an unprovable, untestable concept - should have nothing to do with matters - but of course, religion will argue otherwise.
Last edited: