Dear Yabby,

Your threat **If your philosophy happens to be that you insist on sitting on railway tracks, a good judge would point out the extreme risk of you being hit by a train, despite your philosophy.** has given me cause for concern.

Making a threat is more the act of a terrorist than a person who values life.

Yabby, I use my real name because I'm not ashamed of my position and I'm happy to stand up and be counted.

Unfortunately, using my real name places me at a distinct disadvantage when dealing with unscrupulous people who hide behind pseudonyms.

Is this the price I pay for dismantling rhetorical ramblings?

Now do please tell me Yabby - should I be extra careful when I cross the street from now on?
It would also be nice to know how long I'll need to take extra care - 2 weeks, 2 years, 20 years?
How long do you usually hold a grudge?

Chris

The hypothetical I gave differs from the forms of gamete segregation you mention as in this instance the gametes are in the process of fusing when the sperm is destroyed. I make this distinction on the basis that it leaves no doubt as to which gametes would form the resultant human organism.

HH

I wasn't trying to argue that innate meant inborn or natural, but pointing out that innate is defined as inborn or natural. You state that it could be possible to fix a defect which prevents a human being thinking. So how then could repairing this defect be an innate process when it would require external parties?

The reason I think the creation of gametes to be the fundamental step in the creation of human beings is because they represent the first stage of differentiation from existing humans necessary for the creation of new humans.

Now I believe that this discussion could be simplified somewhat if it is looked at on the basis of what stage it is acceptable to prevent a human from existing. Would you agree with Chris that it is acceptable to destroy a sperm as it is about to fuse with an ovum, but unacceptable to destroy the zygote at any time after fusion? And so as to make this zygote more meaningful for participants like Yabby, let's say that this fusion of gametes, if allowed to grow and differentiate, would become a Nobel Prizewinner for altering the DNA of Bonobos to give them the capacity for abstract rational thought.

Cris, I'm sorry if I expressed myself very unclearly or if you
misunderstood my post. I was suggesting a hypothetical example,
a bit like HH's violinist.

Frankly I don't care who you are or what you do, I am here to discuss points of reason, not people or their personalities.
You could be the pope himself for all I care, it would make no
difference to me.

When it comes to morality, the question does arise as to whom should
be a judge in setting standards. I have heard claims by the churches,
that we would all be savages, but for their moral guidance. The
Catholic church considers itself as a fine judge, IIRC.

Personally I believe that morality is part of evolution, social species evolved to live in relative harmony and cooperation, as it is in their best interests. That is where the church and I differ
in opinions.

HH tells us that it is ok to kill "wicked" people, in the name
of the common good. Who is to judge the defintion of "wicked"?
Is a heretic "wicked", as the church used to claim?

One of the self proclaimed judges, Cardinal Caffarra, told us that
it was better for an hiv infected couple to have sex without a condom and risk spreading hiv, then to use a condom, which was a grave sin.

Where is this amazing respect for human life, if spreading hiv
is considered a lesser crime then using a condom? Why should I accept that moral code?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/more-the-church-than-human-life/2006/11/26/1164476070712.html

Yabby:

(re. your penultimate post)

I think I’ve now identified your “line” in the sand. Killing embryos and indeed any other humans is OK, not just up to 24.9 weeks in utero, but whenever its “practical” (from an earlier post) or when there are “very good reasons” or (maybe), when it “reduces suffering” or for the good of the survival of the species.

In other words, the line in the sand is (as I suspected all along) as wide as the beach itself.

“We” when it means you and a mob – but not me! People tend to believe anything that makes it easier for them to evade harsh realities. The mob once saw no wrong in slavery, until, as you know, some “dogmatic” Christians persuaded them it was wrong. A German ‘we’ went along with Auschwitz. What I subscribe to is reason.

(re. last post to Cris.)

You object to my permitting the execution of community-threatening wicked people on the grounds “who is to judge what is the definition of wicked?”.

Hadn’t you better ask yourself the very same question? : Who (from above section) is to judge what is “practical”, or “reduces suffering” or what are “very good reasons” for killing humans?

I disagree with Caffarra (unless, perhaps, the risk in the particular case was quite remote). The solution when AIDS will certainly be transmitted is – neither adultery nor marital intercourse.

But the moral premise he is relying on is correct. There are lots of actions we should not engage in even if our not doing them might result in the loss of human life. (Again Socrates: it’s better to suffer (or even die) than to do wrong.) If hostage takers threaten to kill unless a woman is raped, it’s nevertherless impermissible to rape the woman. If they threaten to kill a hostage unless I torture a little child, it is nevertheless impermissible for me to torture the child. In neither case am I intending that human life be attacked. It is the hostage takers that are doing so, against my will.

Yabby,

As is my custom I spent a great deal of time pondering the point you were trying to make ...
**you insist on sitting on railway tracks, a good judge would point out the extreme risk of you being hit by a train**

I was unable to decipher any point of reason or any basis of a hypothetical in your statement. Eventually I realised your intent.

A threat under any guise - thinly veiled or otherwise - is still a threat - and has, quite naturally, more weight when attributed to someone who has demonstrated no value for life.

Yes I could be the pope - or I could just be one of the majority of people on this planet whose inherent sense of what is fair gives them an innate understanding of the need to defend human rights for all - regardless of the stage of human life through which they pass.

Yabby ..more wild assertions '..in a way I value life more than you do,as I insist that it is sustainable ,not just about today..'
How can you know that about somenone you do not know?

But overall, Yabby I think I wholly agree with you , in theory at least, and that it something.

I guess as my arguement unfolds my veiw will differ somewhat, not necessarily from yours but because I have yet to read all there is.