Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Science and Moral Values (cont.)

I was going long on the last post, and kind of off topic - but it's theology, so it's all good...

Let's get back to what Obama said (and did).
"I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."
This is curious. I'm not sure what science he is talking about, or what he means by "conscience".

The science clearly says:
  1. A new human life is created at conception (the embryo)
  2. ESCR destroys the embryo
No scientist denies this. They may say it is "life unworthy of life", or not conscious, or unfeeling - but they cannot deny it is a new, unique human life.

What conscience can allow the destruction of human life? Certainly not one guided by God ("thou shall not commit murder"). Perhaps one seared, as by a hot iron (1 Tim 4:2).

7 comments:

Alan said...

What conscience can allow the destruction of human life? Certainly not one guided by God ("thou shall not commit murder").

That's rich coming from the master of violence, vengeance, murder inciting and downright unpleasant writings ever.

nedbrek said...

Of course, the difference is that God created everything and everyone - He has a right to destroy whom He pleases (and people deserve destruction because they have broken the Law).

Abortion is really idolatry. It is proclaiming that people are god - they decide who lives and who dies...

Alan said...

That is such a childish argument. It's like the kid in the sandpit building sand castles. "They're mine, I made them, I can smash them if I want to but you can't" Is your god that childish? Or was that the thinking of the people at the time who made up these stories?

What is your stance on capital punishment then?

Abortion is WHAT? A clump of cells is not a life. It is ALIVE but not a life. If you bring it outside of its incubator it is not viable. There are also many obstacles in the next 9 months that could render that clump of cells non-viable including spontaneous abortion. Or is that god deciding?

nedbrek said...

It's part of logical consistency. Don't you want me to be logical and consistent?

The child in the sandbox is a pretty close analogy. Of course, the child didn't make the sandbox from nothing...

Capital punishment is permitted for the state (Romans 13:4), when it is acting justly. The "acting justly" is often a problem for the state... I would say the current system (in the US) is unjust, and should be put on hold.

What does "alive by not a life" mean? Think twice before you make viability a qualification for rights... how viable are you without a roof over your head and a grocery store, and a job? Can we kill you if you are homeless, hungry and out of work?

Alan said...

"What does "alive by not a life" mean? Think twice before you make viability a qualification for rights... how viable are you without a roof over your head and a grocery store, and a job? Can we kill you if you are homeless, hungry and out of work?"

Rights are earned not implicit.
I think i'm very viable, with or without a roof or grocery store, I've had 55 years to perfect my existence. A week old bundle of undifferentiated cells can't claim the same. Chalk and cheese I'd say.

And yes, I'd like you to be logical and consistent, hell I'd love it but I've pretty much given up all hope of that. You seem to make the most illogical leaps.

nedbrek said...

"Rights are earned not implicit."

That's a fundamental difference between us. I believe we have rights because of what we are (created in God's image).

If rights are earned, then who sets the standard? The rich? The powerful? If they can be earned, they can be revoked.

Think carefully about what you want.

Alan said...

Blah, rights. It's all rights this and that. Everyone wants rights. Child's rights, gays rights, black rights, mens/womens rights. The only right you have is the right to live your life to the best of your ability without infringing on anyone else's right to do the same.

"That's a fundamental difference between us. I believe we have rights because of what we are (created in God's image)."

Yep, that's a big difference between us. What rights would you say you have because you believe that rubbish, as opposed to someone who believes a whole lot of (insert mythical deity here) different rubbish? And what if his "rights" conflict with yours? Who is right/wrong? It's a very dangerous slippery path you're on there Ned.
I'd suggest YOU think carefully about what you want.