Sir-BigBoyJames
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2009
- Messages
- 327
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
my local church had people in it today.
Did you bomb it?my local church had people in it today.
was that supposed to be funny or an insult?Did you bomb it?
Or did you chicken out like the little kafir you are?
Aaawwww...was that supposed to be funny or an insult?
seriously, I didnt find it funny.
Without a doubt this was a miraculous occurrence.It was plain to anyone that what the dog did was highly unusual, but would you call it a miracle?
So the Stations of the Cross today, right? At the 12th Station, where the Cross was fixed, we were saying our prayers and whatnot, when this stray dog presented itself. It was filthy and a little mad, but it did something interesting; it made its way through the crowd and up the little mound where the cross was, and lay at its base in silence and reverence. It stayed in this place for maybe 10 mins, until the thing was over.
Later our Priest claimed this as a miracle and referred to some medieval tale of a half-starved mule when, upon release to a field, instead lay down before the Church altar for some time. He also evoked the same stillness and respect that the barn animals showed during the birth of Christ
It was plain to anyone that what the dog did was highly unusual, but would you call it a miracle?
The devil is going to hate me for pointing this out but, to be fair, god is choosing life too when it comes to certain forms of cell research.FUCK YOU GOD. i choose life.
Aren't all the embryos they use just going to get destroyed anyway?The devil is going to hate me for pointing this out but, to be fair, god is choosing life too when it comes to certain forms of cell research.
The main difference - apart from the way in which one judges what counts as an instance of human life - is that you are espousing a more utilitarian agenda (i.e. 'look at the quantity of lives we could save, and at how much we could extend their lives') whereas the stance of god is classically Kantian. The Kantian position holds that no person should be used as a means to an end - that is, used as a way to achieve ones goals - even if, as in this case, your ends include other people.
Culture wars ensue.
Most of them will be, certainly (though tbh I can't remember the last time I saw the relevant stats).Aren't all the embryos they use just going to get destroyed anyway?
Not really. Regardless of whether a given embryo is tagged for destruction or not, to end its 'life' for the purpose of medical research is to use it as a means to an end.So the argument you outlined above kind of falls short for those embryos designated for destruction, yes?
I wouldn't quite say that I missed it, I simply put the consideration aside (by ignoring issues related to "the way in which one judges what counts as an instance of human life"). I was simply defending a judaeo-christian style ethics from straw man caricatures. Assuming such a religious perspective includes working with the premise that embryos are a form of human life. I don't deny that one can argue against this premise.your missing the point though, embryos dont have a consciousness!! killing an embryo is like killing a plant. and with that considered, the ends most definatly justifys the means. in my opinion anyway.
Precisely.your missing the point though, embryos dont have a consciousness!! killing an embryo is like killing a plant. and with that considered, the ends most definatly justifys the means. in my opinion anyway.
I don't know - I'd argue that there's a distinction between temporarily losing consciousness and not having the ability to be conscious at all.Also, note the important distinction between 'life' and 'consciousness'. I agree that whether a being is conscious could be what is most important, morally (at least on certain views - e.g. a hedonistic utilitarianism). However, one must keep in mind the problems thus created for people who are temporarily unconscious, such as those who are knocked out or who have fallen into a coma.