PuckSR
Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
Thordaddy opines:
| Quote | | My stance is very simple. An innocent human being is not morally obligated to die in order to save another innocent human being even if it is one's child. If a mother chose to die so that her child could live, I would consider that mother to be amongst the most noblest of people. |
You would kill a baby....how sick can you possibly be.....
You would let a mother die...thats just morally outrageous....
How evil can one person be?
 get the point
| Quote | | Is this equivalent to saying we can not find these answers or is it simply saying science is not an ample tool to answer these questions? |
No...science is capable of finding answers to questions....the problem is that we have yet to define words such as "life" and "consciousness"
when you can tell us exactly what those two words mean...in other words...give us definitive qualities for each of those terms...Im sure we can answer your question
| Quote | | This is too good. Ideal science is value-free, but we don't have ideal science. We have value-laden science. We have science that teaches controversial subjects it wishes to propagate and science that plays coy when its findings butt up against political ideology. |
Really? Then please give us some examples.
I already explained to you that your ideas on AIDS and different IQs among races are not examples of science....
What controversial subjects does science teach?
Controversial to who?
Why are they controversial?
| Quote | | I don't see the philosophical argument for claiming YOUR life began at conception. What is this argument, exactly? |
EVERY ARGUMENT YOU MADE FOR LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION WAS EITHER ARGUED PHILOSOPHICALLY OR JUST SIMPLY FROM A MISUNDERSTANDING OF DEFINITIONS
|
