Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Clown Fish, Subjectivism, and the Great Moral Gap

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As we know, subjectivists labor endlessly to convince us that their morality is on a par with the natural law. Clown Fish, for example, insists that, like objectivists, he follows rules and is governed by “oughtness.”

My moral values are very strongly held. They govern many of the things I do. I believe that others OUGHT to comply with my moral values.

He further states that, like objectivists, he believes that the state should also be governed by “oughtness.”

You (kairosfocus) really have to work on your reading comprehension. Your continuing insistence on disagreeing with me about our government by OUGHTness when I have repeatedly stated that I agree with you on our government by OUGHTness suggests that some unhealthy pathology is at work.

This is pure unadulterated sophistry. When the subjectivist claims that he is governed by “oughtness,” he really means that he is governed by *his* ought, not by *the* ought. In other words, he is not governed by oughtness at all because he is the governor of his own oughtness–a conveniently-crafted moral code that just happens to harmonize with his life style.

By contrast, the objectivist, who is governed by *the* ought, must submit to a moral code that binds him from the outside. Since he doesn’t choose that standard, its requirements are not always congenial with his inclinations and often demand a great deal of moral exertion. It requires leaving his emotional comfort zone to bridge the gap between where he is and where he ought to be. But whatever the cost, there is a definitive moral target to be aimed at, which means that moral growth, moral success, or moral failure are all real possibilities.

Objective morality operates in the arena of personal habits. The “ought” is the evaluator and the individual is the thing being evaluated. If there could be such a thing as a mid-term report card from nature, the objectivist’s grades would reflect his moral performance: During that span, he might receive a B+ for persistence, or a D- for courage, or A- for kindness, or an F for patience, and so on. The growth process is uneven. Sometimes, it means gaining ground in one virtue at the expense of losing ground in another. If the moral realist really tries to be good, (harder than it sounds) he will be shocked to find out how bad he is. It will become evident that the gap between the real and the ideal is much wider than was first believed. At that point, his moral failures have introduced him to himself and moral growth can begin.

The subjectivist, on the other hand, is not interested in knowing his true moral condition. That is why he indulges himself with the false consolation that there is really no such thing as a “good” man. Under the circumstances, he can spare himself the task of becoming one. If there are no moral virtues, then there are no moral targets to aim for—no gap to be bridged between the real and the ideal. The subjectivist is already where he needs to be, thank you very much.

His delusional and custom-made morality fits his behavior like a glove and, in his mind, releases him from the obligation of replacing bad habits with good ones, neither of which are real to him. If there is no need for moral improvement, then there is no need for moral exertion. Like the student who grades his own papers, the subjectivist can’t fail; he gets an A every time. Never mind that his perceived excellence is an illusion.

So watch out when a subjectivist claims that he is governed by “oughtness” and wants our government to operate by the same principle. Make no mistake. He doesn’t want the state to be governed by *the* ought, so that everyone, including the ruling class, will be held morally accountable. He wants the state to be the governor of its *own* ought, so that it can arrogate unto itself the power to grant any right, real or imagined, and pass any law, just or unjust, so long as it “feels” right.

Liberalism, subjectivism, and relativism inevitably lead to the loss of real moral standards and the political freedoms that depend on them. Meanwhile, the bullies in waiting wear the mask of false compassion until their moment arrives. It’s a well-established expression, but it bears repeating: Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out. If you don’t believe it, just say hello to one of them while they are terrorizing or beating up supporters at a Donald Trump rally. Subjectivists just don’t feel that moral tension between where they are and where they ought to be.

 

Comments
Ah, so you DO consider the person dead when the brain is dead. Good, I really thought I might have found someone who didn’t believe that. So, why do you consider the person dead? (One of these times I might get an answer!)
From a medical perspective, I would consider the person dead because the brain and nervous system, which control the organs and life sustaining functions, can no longer do the controlling. Seems reasonable to me. From a philosophical/Theological perspective, man has both a soul and a body. In that context, I think death occurs when the soul leaves the body.StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
goodusername
Seriously? Why would I think that someone should be aborted, just because I don’t view it as murder?
I can't imagine why you would do that, but then I can't imagine why you do many of the things you do. So, what's the answer: Are you morally opposed to all abortions?
Umm, actually, it’s one of the most difficult definitions that can be empirically verified for legal reasons.
I didn't say that it was the easiest. I said it was the best. Please don't misrepresent what I say. SB: On the other hand, a fetus doesn’t have a brain until five weeks after pregnancy.
Ah, ok, so not all along.
Don't you have anything substantive to say about that? Your position has just been refuted and you continue to sail along as if nothing has happened. SB: However, a man cannot die without a brain and still has a brain after he dies, albeit one that no longer has function.
A man cannot die without a brain? What?
I get the distinct impression that you are almost ready to say something. Why not give it a try?
I’d ask why it’s necessary for the brain to be dead for a man to be considered dead (when every other organ in the body can still be alive and well), but I’ve given up for the second time.
Where did you get the impression that the brain can be dead and the other organs can be "alive and well?" Do you mean other organs can be sustained by artificial means after the brain dies? Do you mean other organs can provide a last brief gasp at survival after the brain dies? Or do you really mean that other organs can be alive and well after the brain dies? Do you actually know what you mean? Since you define a person as someone who has a personality, a person could lose his personality before he becomes brain dead and would therefore, not be a person when he dies. Do you understand the problem with your position?
Sure, whatever someone’s position is, there’s going to be all sorts of problems and gray areas.
I am glad that you understand your error. You have also made another error when you say that there are problems with my position or my definition. There is no problem with my definition. It works in any analysis of the morality of human life, either at the beginning stages or the end stages. There is only a problem with your definition. Fortunately, you now understand that problem.StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
Clown fish Cape Town although awesome is not the best part of this country......There are much better things, like its people, beautiful indeed.Andre
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
StephenB,
So you are morally opposed to all abortions? That would seem to be a change in your position. Or do you mean something else?
Seriously? Why would I think that someone should be aborted, just because I don’t view it as murder? Does the difference really require explaining? I get the feeling I’m being trolled.
Of course. It’s the best possible medical definition that can be empirically verified for legal reasons.
Umm, actually, it’s one of the most difficult definitions that can be empirically verified for legal reasons. The problems in determining brain death are notorious. It’s vastly easier to verify, say, when a heart stops beating, or if breathing has stopped, or loss of kidney function. If one was using the criterion of the ability to “empirically verify” as an indicator of death, cessation of brain function is possibly the last thing one would choose. But cessation of heart fuction, or lung function, isn’t used as the criterion for death, because no one considers someone with an artificial heart as dead. And it’s not for legal reasons.
It’s not the same thing at all. When a person dies, he still has a brain and had one all along.
Really? Even as a zygote?
On the other hand, a fetus doesn’t have a brain until five weeks after pregnancy.
Ah, ok, so not all along.
However, a man cannot die without a brain and still has a brain after he dies, albeit one that no longer has function.
A man cannot die without a brain? What? I’d ask why it’s necessary for the brain to be dead for a man to be considered dead (when every other organ in the body can still be alive and well), but I’ve given up for the second time.
Since you define a person as someone who has a personality, a person could lose his personality before he becomes brain dead and would therefore, not be a person when he dies. Do you understand the problem with your position?
Sure, whatever someone’s position is, there’s going to be all sorts of problems and gray areas.goodusername
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
Andre: "I am a South African." Another beautiful country. I have been to the Cape Town area a couple times. Victoria and Albert Waterfront. A couple wonderful wine tours.clown fish
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
ZeroSeven I am a South African.Andre
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
goodusername
I don’t think anyone should be aborted.
So you are morally opposed to all abortions? That would seem to be a change in your position. Or do you mean something else?
Ah, so you DO consider the person dead when the brain is dead.
Of course. It's the best possible medical definition that can be empirically verified for legal reasons. I have never indicated anything else. There is a better metaphysical definition, but we can leave that aside for now.
BTW, do you think that same criterion is “arbitrary” when used as the criterion to mark death?
It's not the same thing at all. When a person dies, he still has a brain and had one all along. On the other hand, a fetus doesn't have a brain until five weeks after pregnancy. Yet the fetus is a live person even without a brain and can be killed without a brain. However, a man cannot die without a brain and still has a brain after he dies, albeit one that no longer has function. So you cannot rationally compare the death of a fetus without a brain with the death of a man whose brain dies with him. Its apples and oranges as I have been saying. SB: Who defines the end of personhood as the end of brain life?
Don’t you? If you don’t, you might be the first person I’ve met who doesn’t.
Yes, of course. How could I not since I define a person as an individual human being. I am asking on behalf of those who may define a person differently, like yourself. Since you define a person as someone who has a personality, a person could lose his personality before he becomes brain dead and would therefore, not be a person when he dies. Do you understand the problem with your position?StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
StephenB,
No, it isn’t. Aborting a fetus prior to brain forming cannot be morally justified. Switching off the life support system of a brain dead person is not only moral, its mandatory. Why would any rational person try to keep a dead person alive?
Ah, so you DO consider the person dead when the brain is dead. Good, I really thought I might have found someone who didn’t believe that. So, why do you consider the person dead? (One of these times I might get an answer!)goodusername
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
StephenB,
It’s pretty straightforward. By deserve to live I mean those who you think should not be aborted. Why should only those children who are “persons” (by your arbitrary definition) be spared from abortion? Why shouldn’t all unborn children be spared?
I don't think anyone should be aborted. BTW, do you think that same criterion is "arbitrary" when used as the criterion to mark death?
With respect to the brain, it defines the end of life from a medical perspective.
And why do you suppose that might be? Have you... like... ever given it any thought? It's not just the medical community that uses brain death as a point of death, pretty much everyone does (the only reason I brought it up is because I thought no one would object to it!)
Who defines the end of personhood as the end of brain life?
Don't you? If you don't, you might be the first person I've met who doesn't.
What is their definition of personhood?
It’s what makes “me” me and “you” you - each of our personalities. When the brain dies those qualities - our thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc are gone. And pretty much everyone considers the person dead at that point, regardless of how well the heart is beating, the other organs are functioning, and how well the DNA is still transcribing.
You appear to be confusing the medical cause of death with the medical definition of death. They are not even close to being the same thing.
Wow, you caught that quickly, I edited it almost immediately after posting to change “cause” to “criteria”.goodusername
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
StephenB I don't get why its bad logic. What's the category difference between a foetus without a brain and a brain dead person on a respirator?zeroseven
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
zeroseven
According to your logic, switching off the life support system of a brain dead person is akin to aborting a foetus prior to the brain forming.
No, it isn’t. Aborting a fetus prior to brain forming cannot be morally justified. Switching off the life support system of a brain dead person is not only moral, its mandatory. Why would any rational person try to keep a dead person alive?
You don’t regard the lack of a functioning brain as a relevant consideration when considering the right to life of a foetus.
It is not morally relevant in the least.
So you should apply the same standard to the brain dead person. They should have the same right to life. Therefore life support machines should never be switched off.
Bad logic. There are many moral reasons why a life support system can be switched off. There are no moral reasons for killing an unborn child.StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
goodusername
We seem to be going in circles, and I don’t think we’re understanding each other. What do you mean by “deserve to live”?
It's pretty straightforward. By deserve to live I mean those who you think should not be aborted. Why should only those children who are "persons" (by your arbitrary definition) be spared from abortion? Why shouldn't all unborn children should be spared?
IMO, It’s strange how the brain is viewed as so completely irrelevant as to the start of personhood, and so relevant (actually, the ONLY thing relevant) as the mark of the end of personhood (and not only that, but as the mark of death).
With respect to the brain, it defines the end of life from a medical perspective. What does all that have to do with the end of "personhood?" Who defines the end of personhood as the end of brain life? What is their definition of personhood?
I’m puzzled at other people’s puzzlement of me using the same criteria for the beginning of personhood as we use (for the most part uncontroversially) for the end of personhood (indeed, as the end of life itself).
Because the word "person" has no standardized meaning. It means whatever the individual using it wants it to mean. None of this has anything to do with morality of abortion.
I’ve asked several times why “brain death” is accepted as a cause of death, but I’ve pretty much given up getting an answer to that.
You appear to be confusing the medical cause of death with the medical definition of death. They are not even close to being the same thing.StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
StephenB, maybe if a different person explains it, you will get GUN's point. According to your logic, switching off the life support system of a brain dead person is akin to aborting a foetus prior to the brain forming. You don't regard the lack of a functioning brain as a relevant consideration when considering the right to life of a foetus. So you should apply the same standard to the brain dead person. They should have the same right to life. Therefore life support machines should never be switched off.zeroseven
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
goodusername
We seem to be going in circles, and I don’t think we’re understanding each other. What do you mean by “deserve to live”?
It's pretty straightforward. By deserve to live I mean those who you think should not be aborted. Why should only those children who are "persons" (by your arbitrary definition) be spared from abortion? Why shouldn't all unborn children be spared?
IMO, It’s strange how the brain is viewed as so completely irrelevant as to the start of personhood, and so relevant (actually, the ONLY thing relevant) as the mark of the end of personhood (and not only that, but as the mark of death).
A person is an individual human being. That is the dictionary definition and the rational definition. "Thinking" of "feeling" have nothing to do with it. Abortionists define it another way because they want to rationalize the killing of unborn children. With respect to the brain, it defines the end of life from a medical perspective. Meanwhile, what does all that have to do with the end of "personhood?" Who defines the end of personhood as the end of brain life?
I’m puzzled at other people’s puzzlement of me using the same criteria for the beginning of personhood as we use (for the most part uncontroversially) for the end of personhood (indeed, as the end of life itself).
End of life issues are different from beginning of life issues.
I’ve asked several times why “brain death” is accepted as a cause of death, but I’ve pretty much given up getting an answer to that.
You appear to be confusing the medical cause of death with the medical definition of death. They are not even close to being the same thing.StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
StephenB,
I am asking you why all unborn children don’t deserve to live. You obviously don’t think that they do.
Not only is that not obvious, it's also wrong.
Why do only those you characterize as persons deserve to live?
We seem to be going in circles, and I don't think we're understanding each other. What do you mean by "deserve to live"? I've been taking that as your way of saying "it would be murder to kill", but now I'm not sure.
Meanwhile, I am asking about the parallel that you set up. What does the consensual donation of an organ at death have to do with the killing of an innocent unborn child who doesn’t consent? How are you trying to link the two from a moral perspective?
I've explained that several times in several different ways. To repeat what I said in #49: IMO, It’s strange how the brain is viewed as so completely irrelevant as to the start of personhood, and so relevant (actually, the ONLY thing relevant) as the mark of the end of personhood (and not only that, but as the mark of death). I'm puzzled at other people's puzzlement of me using the same criteria for the beginning of personhood as we use (for the most part uncontroversially) for the end of personhood (indeed, as the end of life itself). I've asked several times why "brain death" is accepted as a criteria for death, but I've pretty much given up getting an answer to that.goodusername
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
SB: Why should an unborn child be required to have such qualities in order to deserve to live?
Until such qualities appear, I don’t consider it murder. If that doesn’t answer your question, than I don’t know what you’re asking.
I am asking you why all unborn children don't deserve to live. You obviously don't think that they do. Why do only those you characterize as persons deserve to live? When death is a requirement for organ donation, which is not always the case, there has to be some objective moral standard based on the principles of the natural moral law.
In every place I’ve seen where such rules have been laid out, a declaration of death is absolutely necessary before organs can be harvested. If you know of (legal) exceptions, I’d be interested in hearing about them.
If you are discussing the harvesting of organs, then I agree with that legal stipulation. Meanwhile, I am asking about the parallel that you set up. What does the consensual donation of an organ at death have to do with the killing of an innocent unborn child who doesn't consent? How are you trying to link the two from a moral perspective?StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
GUN:
SB: Why should an unborn child be required to have such qualities in order to deserve to live?
GUN: Until such qualities appear, I don’t consider it murder. If that doesn’t answer your question, than I don’t know what you’re asking. [emphasis mine --Phin]
Here we see plainly that "why" boils down to whatever GUN considers. Ought it to? I suppose that depends on what GUN considers. Can it be any clearer at this point that morality has been reduced to something as mind-numbingly self-serving as it is self-referential.Phinehas
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
cf:
How would you react if people were constantly telling you (either directly or clearly inferred) that they were better Christians than you?
I'd suggest they have a warped view of what it means to be a Christian, since Christianity isn't about comparing ourselves to one another, but about comparing ourselves to Christ. And when we compare ourselves to Christ, we conclude with the Apostle Paul that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." From the Christian perspective, saying that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin only means that those who have engaged in that lifestyle are in the same boat as the rest of us.Phinehas
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
StephenB,
You have still not answered the question. Why should an unborn child be required to have such qualities in order to deserve to live?
Until such qualities appear, I don’t consider it murder. If that doesn’t answer your question, than I don’t know what you’re asking.
When death is a requirement for organ donation, which is not always the case, there has to be some objective moral standard based on the principles of the natural moral law.
In every place I’ve seen where such rules have been laid out, a declaration of death is absolutely necessary before organs can be harvested. If you know of (legal) exceptions, I’d be interested in hearing about them. The reason it is seen as moral to harvest organs from someone that is brain dead is obvious. With brain death, the qualities that we associate with personhood no longer exist, and so the person is viewed as dead, regardless of the state of the rest of the body. And parts from the rest of the body can be used to save other lives.
What part of — you don’t need to have intelligence, feelings, and emotions to be a person — do you not understand?
I understand the statement, I just don’t agree with it. But to be consistent, it seems that someone that agrees with that statement should be against heart transplants.goodusername
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Zeroseven, thank you. The South Island is definitely on my bucket list. Actually, the parts of the north island that I didn't see is also on my list. My university roommate was the COO for the Kauri Cliffs resort for a few years. Unfortunately, he had moved on before we travelled to NZ. Although, I am sure that there is a car rental company that doesn't want to see me again. Thank "God" that I took full coverage.clown fish
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Andre, I keep asking this question and you never answer. I think you live in the US? Why? Your nation is murdering millions of human beings every year. Its the worst genocide in the history of the world. But all you do about is post a few comments on blogs? Also, regarding natural miscarriages. Why can't God make it so every fetus is perfect - no abnormalities? Is he incompetent? OT note, Clown Fish, just back at work after a long weekend but did not notice your comment about travelling in NZ. Thanks for saying nice things about my country. You have to come back and go to the South Island next time!zeroseven
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
goodusername
What part of a zygote having no intelligence, feelings, emotions, and other things associated with personhood don’t you understand?
What part of -- you don't need to have intelligence, feelings, and emotions to be a person -- do you not understand?StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
goodusename
I don’t consider it murder before the qualities of personhood appear.
You have still not answered the question. Why should an unborn child be required to have such qualities in order to deserve to live?
before all that, it has to be decided if the person is actually dead.
When death is a requirement for organ donation, which is not always the case, there has to be some objective moral standard based on the principles of the natural moral law. First, you have to answer the question, Why is it moral? Answer, The decision to donate and organ is based on the principle of fraternal charity, which is always moral. Now you have to answer the second question. What are the moral conditions under which this can be done. The end can never justify the means. First, the donor must give informed consent. Obviously, that must occur before death. Second, the physical and psychological risks incurred by the donor must be proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. The donor must be aware of these risks and the proportionate good. Third, to destroy the healthy functioning or intrinsic beauty of one's body, even to delay death of another, is morally wrong. These principles are reasonable and are based on the natural moral law. Subjectivism and relativism offer us no such guidance. Those world views are totally useless and cannot help us to make reasonable moral decisions. Indeed, subjectivism is anti-reason.StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
john a designer
I think we tend to get a little sloppy when talking about the “is/ought” problem. For example, it is sometimes incorrectly said that you cannot derive an ought from an is. But is that accurate? Isn’t God, after all, an is?
Of course. I thought I made that point. In fact, I am sure that I made that point. If God created a moral universe with moral laws and if he created man as a moral being with a purpose, it follows that we ought to follow those laws and attain that purpose. Thus, we can certainly derive an "ought" from an "is" in that sense.
The problem is that the progressive secular left wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, they reject God as the basis of moral obligations and human rights, but on the other, they want to coopt the idea of universal human rights. Thus over the last 50-60 years or so we see the creation of so called rights– “abortion rights,” “gay rights.” “animal rights” etc.—but these are arbitrary man-made rights which were invented whole cloth by people with a subversive ideological agenda. Can man make up absolute rights? On what basis? Am I morally obligated to recognize or respect these man-made rights? Should they become, as they have, the basis of law?
Obviously, you are right. Not only does arbitrary morality fail to ground civil law, it provides no moral justification for obeying those laws. Only the natural moral law can do that.StephenB
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Andre,
Before personhood appears? What about the scientific litrature are you unsure about? A zygote, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager or adult is the same thing, a person, but with varying degrees of development. And if we are to butcher fetuses why not butcher them all? What makes you different to Hitler?
What part of a zygote having no intelligence, feelings, emotions, and other things associated with personhood don’t you understand?
When the brain is dead the organism can no longer function. Brain dead means 0 chance of recovery medically speaking. So when you are brain dead the first thing they do is put you on life support, You know how that works right?
So what if there’s no chance of recovery? There are people everywhere living their lives with diseases from which they’ll never recover. Do you think it’s ok to kill them? Is it ok to kill the disabled because they aren’t fully functional? (You know, like Hitler?)goodusername
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Andre: "More than 95% of elective abortions are not for medical reasons." And more than 99% of those occur before there is a discern able brain. What's your point?clown fish
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Right More than 95% of elective abortions are not for medical reasons. Fetuses are like brain dead people? God help us!Andre
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Andre: "When the brain is dead the organism can no longer function. Brain dead means 0 chance of recovery medically speaking. So when you are brain dead the first thing they do is put you on life support, You know how that works right?" Yes. It is just like a fetus being put on life support through an umbilical cord and placenta.clown fish
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Andre: "So? What’s your beef with God about this? Seems to me there is some minimum requirements for a healthy baby and there are some checks and balances in place. Can you do any better?" So, when God does it due to genetic abnormalities, it is OK. But when we do it for the same reason it is immoral.clown fish
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Goodusername When the brain is dead the organism can no longer function. Brain dead means 0 chance of recovery medically speaking. So when you are brain dead the first thing they do is put you on life support, You know how that works right?Andre
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply