Should a woman give birth to a child that can't survive?

Remove all ads!

Mores v ethics (this might be offensive to some, but despite the militant homosexuality, it contains quite a bit of worthwhile discourse).

 

Drew: I believe you are assuming the morals of a group are automatically adopted by the individual. I disagree with that assumption.

That morality stems from a religious or societal norm is not stated or even implied in either definition. Morality dictated by a group may influence individual morals, but is certainly not the only influence. In fact, people will generally join groups whose morals are similar to that of the individual -- and subsequently leave when another group which is even closer to the morals of the individual is found. Your individual morals may not be in line with a groups morals -- although you may choose to let them believe that (an indication of your own morals and ethics).

A person may live by a very strict moral code yet still be considered immoral or amoral by the society. I have always heard that morals are the beliefs we have and ethics are how we live according to those beliefs.

 

I make no such assumption.

I merely point out that morals are derived from religion and ethics are not. The link I posted goes into a lot of detail about what the differences between them are and I'll waste no further space on it.

Try looking up morals or ethics in an encyclopedia instead of a dictionary....or ask an ethicist. Any ethicist will tell you that morals and ethics are not the same thing. Here is another helpful link with more of a scholarly bent to it that further explains the difference.

[ May 09, 2007, 23:58: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Taking that quote from your link means that Morality CAN exist outside the context of Religion.

Delving back to Mormon theology (please don't derail this again), we find that "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." From that perspective, God is where we want to be. God takes on the role of one who has been through every ethical and moral dilema that we could face. He tells us these things because He knows them to be good. WE are taught obedience at first to be good, but as we develop we understand why these things are good. Proper morality can be developed outside of religion by that theory...

 

No, it does not, since it is still talking about what God said. Your quote is actually taken far out of context and was not even a part of an ethical argument, anyway. Further, what God has to say about something is completely irrelevant in an ethical debate because you first have to prove that God actually said something, which also means you will need to prove that God exists.....and then, after proving that God not only exists but that he speaks to people or, at least, through them, you'd have to prove that God actually said what you say God said. Since the existence of god cannot be proven, the whole house of cards falls apart rather messily. This still falls under the purview of morality instead of ethics.

"God said X, therefore Y" is a religious argument, not an ethical one.

How is that proper morality? For that matter, what is proper morality? Off the top of my head, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus do not believe that "As man is, God once was." They do not believe that God was born tainted by original sin as man is* or trapped in an eternal cycle of birth and death until ultimately returning to the source (Godhead) or, if unable to free themselves from the cycle of birth and death, to be utterly destroyed at the end of time**. Does this divergence of belief, then, mean that they are unable to achieve "proper morality"?

* The LDS church may not believe in original sin, but non-LDS Christians, Jews, and Muslims do. Further, none of them believes that man will ever become "as God is". Christian theology also states that Christ was both human and divine. In Christian theology, while Christ walked the earth as a man and lived as a man, he was always more than a man. Christ was both Man and God at the same time. The Jews thought he was a false Messiah, and the Muslims....while they do believe in the Virgin birth, do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but just another in a long line of prophets ("Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of God, that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be' and it is" Quran 19:34-35).

** Hindu belief about the nature and purpose of all life.

[ May 10, 2007, 09:29: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Coming back to the original topic if anyone is interested.
The Irish lass has won her court case to be allowed to Visit Britain to have the abortion.

Probably based on the fact it has been legal since 1992 to recieve information on foreign abortion services and to travel to the UK for an abortion.

It would also appear that the girls legal guardians had already changed their position and it was the "state" (via the Attorney general) who were representing the right to life of the foetus. The cynic in me wonders if this only went to court to set a legal precedent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6639673.stm

 

Well, that's an immeasurably good thing.

 

Definitely not. What's the point?

 

The judge's view is summarised as follows:
"This case, he stressed, was about the right to travel. It was "not about abortion" or about a decision to terminate the existence of a healthy foetus or a disabled child."
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/0510/1178742706896.html

He was very critical of the health board for failing to take the girl's best interests to heart.

With regard to the precedence suggestion it's mentioned in the article that some members of the health board wish to appeal part of the ruling. Taking a broader view I suppose it is important that the health board knows that it can restrict the travel of minors who are placed in its care. I would guess though that this would take place after the girl has travelled or at least wouldn't interfere with her. The judgement was absolutely in her favour.

I'm glad that this issue now looks to be pretty much closed. It must have been a very distressing event for the unfortunate girl. As a side note I can also think of much better uses of €1 million of taxpayer's money (the estimated legal costs). Depressing to think that with a general election two weeks away both of my potential leaders have stated that they have NO intention of introducing legislation to clarify cases like these if they get into power.

 

But the point is that Good exists. God is simply viewed as an instructor and a judge. Jesus Chrict takes the place of mediator for our failings.

How about religious doctrine? You can prove that religion exists. Just because you don't believe in God does not remove the teachings from the debate. President Hinckley or Pope Benedictus the XVI (I think I got the Number right) could be inserted in place of God if that will satisfy you...

If Good exists, and God did not determine it, but rather taught His prophets, who in turn instructed the people as he had been taught...

 

Your missing my point. Again. Any argument derived from religion is a moral argument....not an ethical argument. Ethics is not derived from religion. I'm not trying to say that religion is bad or evil, but am stating that ethics and morals are different. You see, morals shift from religion to religion, but ethics do not. A society with multiple religions will never agree on a uniform moral code*....but they can develop a uniform ethical code** upon which most of them can agree.

True....but I'm not convinced that I'd be making the right conclusion. I place a high value on all life (so much so that when I recently had to have my apartment sprayed for roaches I was riddled with guilt for weeks and still have trouble sleeping), but I also place a high value lessening the suffering of others whenever possible. Knowing how this child will suffer, I'm not convinced that bringing it into the world would be the right thing to do and fear that perhaps I would be allowing my ideology and cowardice to cloud my reason.

* Because each religion has a different moral outlook.

** Laws

[ May 11, 2007, 22:55: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Yet, the same people who insist that abortion and euthanasia are wrong will do the same here. To them all life is worth keeping, even if it's made of only pain and torture. A result of naive ignorance, perhaps.

 

Or perhaps a result of their religious beliefs, as has been mentioned before. To some people willfully taking a life is always the worst choice (akin to premeditated murder).

To assume everyone has the same value system and should reach the same conclusion based on logic from your values system is indeed naive ignorance.

 

I did not assume that everyone would reach that conclusion, let alone stat from that value system. I merely made my case to introduce spiritual concerns into the discussion.


[He wasn't directing that at you Gnarff - dmc]

[ May 15, 2007, 16:54: Message edited by: dmc ]