Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:01:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
478 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry,
To recap, I had written:
> Put another way, heterosexual sex brings with it the
> possibility of procreation (however remote, or blocked
> by contingent factors it is); homosexual sex cannot do
> so even in principle.
You replied:
> This happens to turn out to not be actually true if one
> steps outside the human species. Further it's not true
> in principle for humans today, and as medical science
> continues to advance, soon it won't be true in actuality.
And I responded:
> You won't hear me argue about morality for species other
> than human beings, so the first point is irrelevant. I'm
> wondering how it isn't true in principle for humans today,
> and as medical science continues to advance.
Finally, you clarified and said:
> You're going to have to admit that humanity is subject
> to the same genetic rules as other species, for starters.
> Once you grant that, you're all set.
I'm not sure that's true, for one (In what sense do you mean "subject to the
same genetic rules?"), but it's also irrelevant (more below).
> *All* you need to do is construct a mechanism for
> taking the genetic material of the two partners and
> mingling it together, then place it into a receptive egg
> and let it grow. ("all" put in asterisks, because this is a
> non trivial task to carry out, but not impossible)
>
> That's possible in principle today, and I'm confident it's
> going to be actually possible quite soon. Humans are
> quite clever, you know.
>
> Note that two girls can only make girls, unless you
> involve a third donor, but two boys can make boys
> or girls...
Well, you're not alone in this line of thinking. "Dave!" wrote:
> It has been demonstrated that an embryo can be
> implanted into the abdomenal cavity of a male
> mammal and brought to term through the application
> of hormone therapies and medical supervision. The
> experiment I read about involved a male baboon and
> took place over a decade ago, but the fetus was aborted
> before bringing it to full gestation. In addition, it is
> also true than men can be made to bear milk, again
> through the use of hormone therapy, but this exacts a
> heavy price upon the man's health and physiology.
> With future developments, presumably, it will be
> possible for a man (or a woman lacking a uterus) to
> carry a child to term and to provide milk for it as an infant.
As I pointed out in another post, these are all contingent factors which
don't affect the ruling. That's how morality works. As an example, when
conservatives argue against homosexuality, and cite statistics on AIDS or
other health-related problems, the question to ask is - If we develop
technology to work around or cure those problems, would the behavior still
be immoral? If the answer comes back "yes", then we're dealing with an
altogether different type of argument.
The fact is that you've cited artificial changes - changes requiring
intervention - to human biology to achieve the ends you've described. So if
homosexuals were genetically or otherwise altered to reproduce among
themselves, would homosexual relations still be immoral? Yes, they would.
This is, inevitably, the *nature* question which you raised earlier, but
apparently overlooked in your counterarguments. Note that Jesus cited the
order of creation (male, female, "one flesh") to make his argument against
divorce. There is an "ought to be"-ness or teleology to human nature not
subject to the whims of technology.
Here's the other side of the coin: It's also possible with technology to
breed paralytics, those blind/deaf/dumb, or people missing their limbs or
other bodily systems. Is an individual who has been genetically altered to
be blind entitled to their sight in some way? Are they genuinely missing
something? How so, if there is no Nature to human nature? Is there more
than just what is?
Your naturalism is showing (functionally, at least): in your world,
everything is contingent, human beings are property-things, and your
arguments make sense from that angle. But if a question like the above -
"Is the genetically-bred blind person genuinely missing something?" - has
something more to it than a question like - "Should a traffic light's colors
be different than what they are?" - then maybe a contingent view of humanity
isn't the correct one. In that case, arguments like the ones you've made
against a moral standard for human sexuality are grossly misplaced; they
can't speak to the moral questions, which are by nature questions of
necessity.
Cheers,
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) This brings up a larger argument - are these changes "artificial"? I contend they are not. Evolution can come in many forms, and we are simply accelerating it with our own discoveries. If those changes are created by humans, I contend they are (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) You're going to have to admit that humanity is subject to the same genetic rules as other species, for starters. Once you grant that, you're all set. *All* you need to do is construct a mechanism for taking the genetic material of the two (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
