RS <<At what point does consciousness begin in a human?>>
That's the wrong question. The real question is, "At what point does a human
life have enough 'value' to entitle it to protection from willful
termination?"
Now, here Russell's materialist presupposition comes home to roost. For the
materialist has no standard to answer this question. He can go around and
around with his fellows and they'll never be able to prove anything.
But the theist has no problem. The answer can be found in the sacred book, and
the answer is that the life has value in God's sight EVEN BEFORE conception!
Thus, one system fails, the other does not, in providing an answer to the
proper question.
Russell can only answer this way: I reject your system, ontologically.
This, of course, is an answer to a different issue, as has been so
painstakingly pointed out numerous times by numerous people.
>The old and sick appear to be next; indeed, in the Netherlands, it
>has already begun.
RS <If you're referring to euthanasia, then please explain to me why it is
more moral to force a terminally ill person to suffer a long, horribly
painful death rather than giving them a peaceful one.>
This "no hope" situation you describe is the easy case. No extraordinary means
to prolong DEATH are called for.
But now let's ask you to further define your moral parameters under a
materialist ethics. At what point (if any) would you disallow the deliberate
inducement of death? Please use your own starting point, "I am hurt; I feel
pain" to explain your distinctions.
Jim