ChatterBank5 mins ago
A Sacred Foetus?
72 Answers
To paraphrase Dawkins if I may, is it right that we give less importance to a thinking feeling chimpanzee than to a foetus that has the [mental capacity] of a worm, but the potential to grow into a human being?
Personally, I disagree with Dawkins, and hold that all human life is far more valuable than animal life.
Should the word, "sacred," be used here?
Thank you.
Personally, I disagree with Dawkins, and hold that all human life is far more valuable than animal life.
Should the word, "sacred," be used here?
Thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
SACRED:
"Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine."
So, you can pretty much work out the answer yourself. At best, only religious people might agree that sacred is an appropriate word.
Besides which, the quote is actually a question being offered up for consideration in a wider section on moral philosophy, not a definitive statement of Dawkin's views.
Moreover, you've merely stated which side of the fence you're on, but failed to justify why you think that.
"Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine."
So, you can pretty much work out the answer yourself. At best, only religious people might agree that sacred is an appropriate word.
Besides which, the quote is actually a question being offered up for consideration in a wider section on moral philosophy, not a definitive statement of Dawkin's views.
Moreover, you've merely stated which side of the fence you're on, but failed to justify why you think that.
In that case, I am guilty of using the word, "sacred," in an inapproriate manner.
To me, the sanctity of human life is self evident, and given my beliefs, therein lies my justification.
If what I have suggested is not defintiive of Dawkins' views, then one wonders how he definitively views human life in comparison to animal life.
To me, the sanctity of human life is self evident, and given my beliefs, therein lies my justification.
If what I have suggested is not defintiive of Dawkins' views, then one wonders how he definitively views human life in comparison to animal life.
As we're paraphrasing people may I offer Germaine Greer:
Who suggested that Catholic priests should hold requiem masses for sanitary towelss due to the large number of foetusses that fail to implant or fail to start a pregnancy.
If you truely believe that human life starts at the moment of conception this is a gigantic death toll that continues as God's design.
Can I add these to my ever growing list of those God has killed?
Who suggested that Catholic priests should hold requiem masses for sanitary towelss due to the large number of foetusses that fail to implant or fail to start a pregnancy.
If you truely believe that human life starts at the moment of conception this is a gigantic death toll that continues as God's design.
Can I add these to my ever growing list of those God has killed?
I don't agree (no surprise there then)
What do you mean that all human life is more valuable. How would I see you valuing all human life more than animal?
Is this some notion that given a choice between animal experimentation for the benefit of research, or if you had to choose between rescuing the family pet versus the person from next door?
What do you mean that all human life is more valuable. How would I see you valuing all human life more than animal?
Is this some notion that given a choice between animal experimentation for the benefit of research, or if you had to choose between rescuing the family pet versus the person from next door?
All I know is that when Mrs O found out that she was pregnant, she was revered. Perhaps a gift from God, perhaps a work of biological marvel, either way the developing foetus/baby was held sacred, as was and is my wife and the �person� that was delievered to us.
Had anything fatal happened to the foetus during development, we would have mourned and grieved as though it was a lost life.
The old axiom about sanitary towels is worn and stale. Even if you don�t believe that life is a �sacred� gift from God, where do you consider �life� begins then? It seems nobody can really agree.
Had anything fatal happened to the foetus during development, we would have mourned and grieved as though it was a lost life.
The old axiom about sanitary towels is worn and stale. Even if you don�t believe that life is a �sacred� gift from God, where do you consider �life� begins then? It seems nobody can really agree.
I would have felt (indeed, since my wife is pregnant again at the moment, I actively feel) the same way, Octavius, however, that mourning would be for the potential life and the hopes and fears that it represents - i.e. our projections onto it as much as anything else.
In any case, this is getting what Dawkins said the wrong way around. He's not suggesting that people shouldn't have feelings about fetuses, he's making a point about the treatment of animals. It bears reading in context.
Oh, and Octavius - keep your worn and stale sanitary towels to yourself, eh?
In any case, this is getting what Dawkins said the wrong way around. He's not suggesting that people shouldn't have feelings about fetuses, he's making a point about the treatment of animals. It bears reading in context.
Oh, and Octavius - keep your worn and stale sanitary towels to yourself, eh?
In context I have a pet monkey called Fred and a foetus developing in my wife�s womb. Should I hold the foetus more �sacred� than Fred because it is a human life, whereas Fred is a living being, currently more advanced than the foetus, but still an animal?
In what scenario would I need to determine and demonstrate which I would venerate more than the other?
In what scenario would I need to determine and demonstrate which I would venerate more than the other?
Really? I thought he said something like�..
�Human means special, unique, sacred, of infinite worth, to be venerated as the possessor of "human dignity." Animal means to be treated kindly but put to human use, painlessly destroyed when usefulness is past, killed for sport, or as a pest.�
Nonetheless, if we exclude the word �sacred� in lieu of say 'dignified' my question still has merit, oui, non?
�Human means special, unique, sacred, of infinite worth, to be venerated as the possessor of "human dignity." Animal means to be treated kindly but put to human use, painlessly destroyed when usefulness is past, killed for sport, or as a pest.�
Nonetheless, if we exclude the word �sacred� in lieu of say 'dignified' my question still has merit, oui, non?
Dawkins' question, whatever the context, and even though it is hypothetical, is important, because if the principal is established that potential human life is only as important, or not as important, as animal life, then the importance and dignity of human life is within the grasp of the unscrupulous politician, who can begin the journey down the slippery slope that leads to eugenics. In my opinion.
Just Google the quote you've just given - it's perfectly understandable, whether or not you agree.
Look; not every word that streams from Dawkins' typewriter is genius. Some of his scientific conclusions are disputed (not just by faithhead psuedo scientists, but proper ones) and not everything he says on religion goes down well, even among atheists, but if you're going to attack him, at least do it on the basis of what he's actually saying.
Theland - bollox, as usual.
Look; not every word that streams from Dawkins' typewriter is genius. Some of his scientific conclusions are disputed (not just by faithhead psuedo scientists, but proper ones) and not everything he says on religion goes down well, even among atheists, but if you're going to attack him, at least do it on the basis of what he's actually saying.
Theland - bollox, as usual.
