3 ms·

"...He spoke at length with bioethicists William Hurlbut at Stanford University, as well as his son Benjamin Hurlbut at Arizona State University, neither of who

"...He spoke at length with bioethicists William Hurlbut at Stanford University, as well as his son Benjamin Hurlbut at Arizona State University, neither of whom was aware of He’s plans. The elder Hurlbut spent time telling He about opposition to the instrumental use of human embryos in the United States, and the grounds for believing that human life begins at conception." Aren't those beliefs themselves harmful?

dev_north_east 8y ago
How are they harmful?
- dempseye 8y ago
  If someone thinks that women ought to be able to exercise control over their reproduction, and that abortion is a legitimate means of exercising that control that accrues benefits to individuals and societies by being legal, then the belief that human life begins at conception, being a traditional argument against the moral permissibility of abortion, could seem harmful. The same applies to stem cell research.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  >> and the grounds for believing that human life begins at conception. > How are they harmful? Because it doesn't stop there. It starts by banning abortion or restricting to some line (heartbeat, 4 weeks, etc..). Doing abortion then turns into murder, and is charged by the state as such. As the radicals (this belief is primarily christian) get more entrenched, then this window slides further into conception=life Then miscarriages and 'intentional miscarriages' itself becomes a crime of murder. This has already happened in Virginia, Tennessee, and other locations around thw rodl: https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a44552/when-a-miscarriage-becomes-a-crime/ https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a44552/when-a-m... Having this belief takes away women's agency of their own bodies. It turns them into second class citizens by making their body worth less than the similar male, solely that they can have a baby.
agarden 8y ago
Doesn't it matter more if those beliefs are correct?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  Moral believes really cannot be considered "correct" or "incorrect". It's sort-of why they are called "moral believes", and not "observed fact". What's closest to being "correct" is "generally agreed to be good at guiding human behaviour into a direction that may, just possibly, survive the harsh light of passing time without being viewed as crass injustice. Or, you know, wiping out humanity (both senses of the word)".

dev_north_east 8y ago

How are they harmful?

dempseye 8y ago
If someone thinks that women ought to be able to exercise control over their reproduction, and that abortion is a legitimate means of exercising that control that accrues benefits to individuals and societies by being legal, then the belief that human life begins at conception, being a traditional argument against the moral permissibility of abortion, could seem harmful. The same applies to stem cell research.
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
>> and the grounds for believing that human life begins at conception. > How are they harmful? Because it doesn't stop there. It starts by banning abortion or restricting to some line (heartbeat, 4 weeks, etc..). Doing abortion then turns into murder, and is charged by the state as such. As the radicals (this belief is primarily christian) get more entrenched, then this window slides further into conception=life Then miscarriages and 'intentional miscarriages' itself becomes a crime of murder. This has already happened in Virginia, Tennessee, and other locations around thw rodl: https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a44552/when-a-miscarriage-becomes-a-crime/ https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a44552/when-a-m... Having this belief takes away women's agency of their own bodies. It turns them into second class citizens by making their body worth less than the similar male, solely that they can have a baby.

agarden 8y ago

Doesn't it matter more if those beliefs are correct?

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
Moral believes really cannot be considered "correct" or "incorrect". It's sort-of why they are called "moral believes", and not "observed fact". What's closest to being "correct" is "generally agreed to be good at guiding human behaviour into a direction that may, just possibly, survive the harsh light of passing time without being viewed as crass injustice. Or, you know, wiping out humanity (both senses of the word)".