Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe in BOTH capital punishment and abortion. I also favor euthanasia. When a "life" is unwanted, we have the right to end it. We claim that right in wartime, don't we?
Who determines "unwanted"? Thats a dangerous factor to be considering who lives and who dies.
And no, we do not factor "unwanted" into wartime. Where did you get that idea? Maybe you can explain a situation where we do use "unwanted" as a factor, because I can think of none.
The Law of Biogenesis, in short, says that life cannot be created from non-life. While this may have been true many years ago, it's becoming an obsolete "saying".
Every day new advances are going towards creating life from non-life.
Scientists create life from non-life (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080125/NEWS03/783354448/-1/news - broken link)
These scientists have mimicked a bacterium - by usage of chemicals and knowledge. Minor, yes. But with the experiments and data, years from now, we could create much more.
Back to the topic of logic in abortion debates. The problem doesn't lie with a lack of logic - it is so dense in perceived logic from either side that it becomes a contest of whose logic is better.
Let me ask you this then. If we can't depend on science considering things change and one thing could be proven one day and then disproven the next, what about simply using plain common sense. Many say "no one really knows when life begins?" If that is the case, wouldn't safely operate on the side of human life? If you were a hunter and there was movement in a bush, are you going to blindly shoot at it or make sure that it's not a human being first. If you are driving and see something in the road but are unsure if it's a small child or just a bag of garbage, are you going to speed up and run over it while unsure or are you going to slow down and make sure it's not a small child. In a demolition, would you blow a building without being completely sure it was empty? How could anyone be comfortable with the logic of, until I am completely convinced it's a human life, it's okay to kill it? Why wouldn't you operate on the side of life until you are certain no life is involved?
Let me ask you this then. If we can't depend on science considering things change and one thing could be proven one day and then disproven the next, what about simply using plain common sense. Many say "no one really knows when life begins?" If that is the case, wouldn't safely operate on the side of human life? If you were a hunter and there was movement in a bush, are you going to blindly shoot at it or make sure that it's not a human being first. If you are driving and see something in the road but are unsure if it's a small child or just a bag of garbage, are you going to speed up and run over it while unsure or are you going to slow down and make sure it's not a small child. In a demolition, would you blow a building without being completely sure it was empty? How could anyone be comfortable with the logic of, until I am completely convinced it's a human life, it's okay to kill it? Why wouldn't you operate on the side of life until you are certain no life is involved?
What do we consider human life, then? Simply having cells and multiplying without any sort of human conscience makes something no more or no less than any other numbers of cell-based organisms. What makes it a human? Just because it will become a person does not mean it is now.
A caterpillar will one day be a butterfly. Do we call all caterpillars by the name of butterfly?
Trees and other plants, for instance, grow, eat, reproduce, etc. However, we have to kill some of them for the necessity of the advancement of the human race.
Unless you want to insinuate that humans are distinctively better than the other fauna and flora of the world.
And this is the over-logic I speak of. To me, a logical point of a fetus becoming a human is when they are physically able to support the natural bodily functions of breathing, processing food, and filtering waste without the dependency of another body doing the work. We still need to feed said child. We just don't need to process their food with our own bodies. To me, that is when a fetus becomes a human - and the point where an abortion should not occur.
As for Human-Vegetables. They're still human; they've just been damaged temporarily or permanently.
However, to you, the logical point of humanity is the moment that the cells start splitting.
Unless you want to insinuate that humans are distinctively better than the other fauna and flora of the world.
Are you saying that humans are NOT distinctively better than the other fauna and flora of the world???
I think this difference in worldview may indeed be what frames this argument. I do believe that human beings have intrinsic value and worth that no other "lifeform" on our planet has. Not even close! I thought we all believed that.
Are you saying that humans are NOT distinctively better than the other fauna and flora of the world???
I think this difference in worldview may indeed be what frames this argument. I do believe that human beings have intrinsic value and worth that no other "lifeform" on our planet has. Not even close! I thought we all believed that.
No , we don't "all believe that" imagine that! That is exactly the issue, your beliefs don't equal my beliefs and my beliefs are just as important to me, as yours are to you.
I believe each species on earth has it's own purpose and reason for being here. And no, I don't believe we are better, quite the opposite. We are destroying the environment and the planet and there are wars were people are killed every day and we are eliminating many species every day by destroying their habitat. We have intelligence, but not enough to know better, apparently.
What do we consider human life, then? Simply having cells and multiplying without any sort of human conscience makes something no more or no less than any other numbers of cell-based organisms. What makes it a human? Just because it will become a person does not mean it is now.
A caterpillar will one day be a butterfly. Do we call all caterpillars by the name of butterfly?
Trees and other plants, for instance, grow, eat, reproduce, etc. However, we have to kill some of them for the necessity of the advancement of the human race.
Unless you want to insinuate that humans are distinctively better than the other fauna and flora of the world.
And this is the over-logic I speak of. To me, a logical point of a fetus becoming a human is when they are physically able to support the natural bodily functions of breathing, processing food, and filtering waste without the dependency of another body doing the work. We still need to feed said child. We just don't need to process their food with our own bodies. To me, that is when a fetus becomes a human - and the point where an abortion should not occur.
As for Human-Vegetables. They're still human; they've just been damaged temporarily or permanently.
However, to you, the logical point of humanity is the moment that the cells start splitting.
Okay, so you have determined that an unborn baby becomes a human when it's able to breath, filter and process food, which doesn't happen until birth. So basically, a magical little trip down the birth canal will suddenly transform this non-human thing into a human being. Never mind that her DNA confirms she's human from the get go, never mind that her parents are human, which also confirms she is human from the get go. What makes her a human is her little venture down a 6 inch birth canal. Boy, that's some logic!
Are you saying that humans are NOT distinctively better than the other fauna and flora of the world???
I think this difference in worldview may indeed be what frames this argument. I do believe that human beings have intrinsic value and worth that no other "lifeform" on our planet has. Not even close! I thought we all believed that.
Human beings exist because of an accident of evolution. Any other life form could have evolved to a higher form, perhaps leaving man's evolution at the Australopithecus boisei stage (or lower) of hominid evolution. Rather than ruling the world, hominids would have remained a life form at the mercy of their environment as well as other predators.
Humans are where we are on the food chain only due to the evolution of the hominid brain size, and the miracle of opposable thumbs, nothing more, nothing less. We are not at the top of the evolutionary ladder because we are particularly "special" and have some sort of intrinsic value above and beyond that of any other life form. If anything, our "worth" has caused us to believe that it is some how our "right" to decimate this planet, selfishly squandering its natural resources, while ensuring that some future generation will find itself unable to support its overpopulated world, simply because we imagine that some omnipotent god has given "man" dominion over all the Earth.
Some day, the Earth will rebel at its abuse at the hands of man--we are, after all, our own worse enemy. Humankind, with its arrogant misuse of the Earth's resources, will all but guarantee its own destruction, leaving the Earth to the flora and fauna. I venture to say that with none of our own kind around to admire our accomplishments, humankind will fade away into obscurity.
Okay, so you have determined that an unborn baby becomes a human when it's able to breath, filter and process food, which doesn't happen until birth. So basically, a magical little trip down the birth canal will suddenly transform this non-human thing into a human being. Never mind that her DNA confirms she's human from the get go, never mind that her parents are human, which also confirms she is human from the get go. What makes her a human is her little venture down a 6 inch birth canal. Boy, that's some logic!
Just as when the caterpillar becomes a butterfly when it spreads it wings for the first time. To me, it's the same concept.
No , we don't "all believe that" imagine that! That is exactly the issue, your beliefs don't equal my beliefs and my beliefs are just as important to me, as yours are to you.
I believe each species on earth has it's own purpose and reason for being here. And no, I don't believe we are better, quite the opposite. We are destroying the environment and the planet and there are wars were people are killed every day and we are eliminating many species every day by destroying their habitat. We have intelligence, but not enough to know better, apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
Human beings exist because of an accident of evolution. Any other life form could have evolved to a higher form, perhaps leaving man's evolution at the Australopithecus boisei stage (or lower) of hominid evolution. Rather than ruling the world, hominids would have remained a life form at the mercy of their environment as well as other predators.
Humans are where we are on the food chain only due to the evolution of the hominid brain size, and the miracle of opposable thumbs, nothing more, nothing less. We are not at the top of the evolutionary ladder because we are particularly "special" and have some sort of intrinsic value above and beyond that of any other life form. If anything, our "worth" has caused us to believe that it is some how our "right" to decimate this planet, selfishly squandering its natural resources, while ensuring that some future generation will find itself unable to support its overpopulated world, simply because we imagine that some omnipotent god has given "man" dominion over all the Earth.
Some day, the Earth will rebel at its abuse at the hands of man--we are, after all, our own worse enemy. Humankind, with its arrogant misuse of the Earth's resources, will all but guarantee its own destruction, leaving the Earth to the flora and fauna. I venture to say that with none of our own kind around to admire our accomplishments, humankind will fade away into obscurity.
Well, again, I guess it is just a difference in worldview. If someone doesn't attribute a whole lot of value to humans in general, it would seem pretty natural that they wouldn't give much value to those yet unborn. On the other hand, I believe humans are VERY special, not just a random "product" of some kind of process. It probably has to do with whether you believe in a "Creator" or not, but then that's a topic for another thread I suppose....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is exactly the issue, your beliefs don't equal my beliefs and my beliefs are just as important to me, as yours are to you.
