A Sacred Foetus?

[Theland1]

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.

[WaldoMcFroog]

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.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Have a missing 's':

s

[Theland1]

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.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Have you tried reading any of his books..? They explain it very well.

[jake-the-peg]

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?

[Octavius]

The Roman Catholic Church has regarded �personhood� as beginning at conception since the 19th C. Prior to that it was generally considered only after God "breathed into it the breath of life" that (Adam) "became a living person." That is, at birth, or when the foetus is halfway out.

[ruby27]

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?

[merejeans]

God said ' you are wonderfully and fearfully made' and 'when you were still in your mothers womb I knew you'.
I think that means that at conception you are in God's plan.
As for God killing people, work out the difference between the old and the new testament - BC and AD.

[naomi24]

As for God killing people, work out the difference between the old and the new testament - BC and AD.

Are you saying that God changed his personality between those two periods - or that the writers did it for him?

[Octavius]

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.

[WaldoMcFroog]

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?

[Octavius]

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?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Dawkins never mentions sacredness or veneration, so the point is moot. That was Theland's contribution.

As I say, it bears reading in context.

[Octavius]

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?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Talk about out of context - that's the dictionary definition of it.

That quote is Dawkins discussing views he finds objectionable, not views he supports.

[Theland1]

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.

[Octavius]

So Dawkins is saying that animal dignity is more worthy than human dignity?

If you would take the time to explain the context as you see it and provide your opinion on the proposition I gave, perhaps my addled mind would be clearly put at ease.

[WaldoMcFroog]

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.

[Octavius]

Nope, not trying to attack him, you just keep harping on about context, so I was looking for your take on it, and perhaps clarity in your viewpoint.

No need to go all bashful about it.

[Theland1]

Why thank you Waldo.