Bible thumping teenagers

[Good Old Neon]

while giving him a chance to answer...are you saying there is?

 

Personally, I am against the death penalty

[EL the Famous]

You

[bjorn_skurj]

I think there are some people who certainly deserve the death penalty, but since our legal system is far from perfect, it can't be an option. You imprison someone erroneously, you can let him out if the error is discovered. You execute somebody erroneously, it can't be undone.

[Atticus]

You execute somebody erroneously, it can't be undone.

 

what about Jesus?

[Good Old Neon]

Quick synopsis of my personal beliefs by way of the Secular Humanist charter - with the full understanding that living up to these standards is going to require no small amount of personal growth on my part

[ikol]

Are you suggesting you are ok with the death penalty?

 

And if so

[EL the Famous]

i'm a christian and follow the same charter...and yes, you need to continue working on that.

[bjorn_skurj]

what about Jesus?

A notable exception.

[Atticus]

A notable exception.

 

if more of these feti and criminals would follow that example, the murder issue might become a moot point, or at least more of an inconvenience and less of a "death." although upon reflection having a bunch of resurrected humans roaming about may cause a whole other problem.

[Elixir Sue]

Some topical comic relief:

 

Woman Overjoyed By Giant Uterine Parasite

[Good Old Neon]

i'm a christian and follow the same charter...and yes, you need to continue working on that.

 

As do we all.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

What is the proper foundation of law? Morality? "Natural" rights?

[viatroy]

I don't believe you can legislate morality.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

This is the commonly repeated mantra, but can you base laws on morality?

[viatroy]

It's certainly been tried, but it tends not to work.

[bobbob1313]

Aren't all laws based on somebody's morals?

[Beltmann]

That's not true though. If you dispute the idea of a 'sliding scale of existence' (I think this term is an oversimplification, but for the sake of argument), then those embryos should be exactly as worthy of being saved as the baby, maybe moreso since there are 12 of them.

If two children were in a burning building, and one belonged to you, which would you save? Obviously, you would choose to save your loved one, but does that choice, based on subjective emotion, imply that the other child's life is somehow less worthy? Of course not... all it does is reveal our human tendency to make decisions based on subjective emotion. That's the problem with your scenario--it asks people to make a subjective, emotional choice, and, as humans, we can hardly be blamed for choosing the being that most closely resembles ourselves. But subjectivity and emotions should have no place in an objective, scientific or medical discussion about when human life begins.

 

Can we define "human being" in terms of the traits that are true of every single human individual? And if so, isn't it true that every single individual was once an embryo? And if so, doesn't that indicate that the continuum of human life must begin at fertilization? (This is why I object to the term "potential human" to describe an embryo; since I believe it is already a human being, I believe it has already reached said potential.) Rationally speaking, that definition of human life may be less arbitrary than any other: Less arbitrary because it seeks to return to the start of the human life continuum rather than drawing a random line elsewhere along that continuum, rational because it incorporates medical and biological logic to arrive at the conclusion that fertilization is that starting point.

 

You know, it's possible to believe abortion is the wrongful taking of human life and still believe, as I do, that it should remain legal for pragmatic reasons. Outlawing abortion might be ethically defensible, but only on abstract grounds. The truth is, an abortion ban won't have the desired effect: Rather than end abortion, it will only generate more ethical and health dilemmas than before. The pro-life crowd ought to focus less on banning abortion--which is a simplistic response to a complex problem--and more on encouraging people to act responsibly and, when that fails, as it often will, to seek alternatives to abortion.

[Atticus]

Outlawing abortion might be ethically defensible, but only on abstract grounds. The truth is, an abortion ban won't have the desired effect: Rather than end abortion, it will only generate more ethical and health dilemmas than before. The pro-life crowd ought to focus less on banning abortion--which is a simplistic response to a complex problem--and more on encouraging people to act responsibly and, when that fails, as it often will, to seek alternatives to abortion.

 

could you please substitute "abortion" with "drugs" (and a few other clerical changes) and send this to our government? so very well put...

[Good Old Neon]

If two children were in a burning building, and one belonged to you, which would you save? Obviously, you would choose to save your loved one, but does that choice, based on subjective emotion, imply that the other child's life is somehow less worthy? Of course not... all it does is reveal our human tendency to make decisions based on subjective emotion. That's the problem with your scenario--it asks people to make a subjective, emotional choice, and, as humans, we can hardly be blamed for choosing the being that most closely resembles ourselves. But subjectivity and emotions should have no place in an objective, scientific or medical discussion about when human life begins.

 

Can we define "human being" in terms of the traits that are true of every single human individual? And if so, isn't it true that every single individual was once an embryo? And if so, doesn't that indicate that the continuum of human life must begin at fertilization? (This is why I object to the term "potential human" to describe an embryo; since I believe it is already a human being, I believe it has already reached said potential.) Rationally speaking, that definition of human life may be less arbitrary than any other: Less arbitrary because it seeks to return to the start of the human life continuum rather than drawing a random line elsewhere along that continuum, rational because it incorporates medical and biological logic to arrive at the conclusion that fertilization is that starting point.

 

You know, it's possible to believe abortion is the wrongful taking of human life and still believe, as I do, that it should remain legal for pragmatic reasons. Outlawing abortion might be ethically defensible, but only on abstract grounds. The truth is, an abortion ban won't have the desired effect: Rather than end abortion, it will only generate more ethical and health dilemmas than before. The pro-life crowd ought to focus less on banning abortion--which is a simplistic response to a complex problem--and more on encouraging people to act responsibly and, when that fails, as it often will, to seek alternatives to abortion.

 

It is much more than an aesthetic preference

[Good Old Neon]

If two children were in a burning building, and one belonged to you, which would you save? Obviously, you would choose to save your loved one, but does that choice, based on subjective emotion, imply that the other child's life is somehow less worthy? Of course not... all it does is reveal our human tendency to make decisions based on subjective emotion. That's the problem with your scenario--it asks people to make a subjective, emotional choice, and, as humans, we can hardly be blamed for choosing the being that most closely resembles ourselves. But subjectivity and emotions should have no place in an objective, scientific or medical discussion about when human life begins.

 

Further, haven

[Beltmann]

It is much more than an aesthetic preference

[Beltmann]

Further, haven

[Good Old Neon]

Any reasonable person should know that it isn't the stockpiling of "traits" that gives life value--which is why no reasonable person would ever say that a person in a coma, who lacks the traits of sentience and consciousness, is now somehow less than human.

Your analogy is flawed, I think. Left in its natural state, a blueprint will never become a building. The same is true for sperm and ovum, which, if left in their natural state, will never be anything other than sperm or ovum (which is why contraception is not equal to abortion, at least to my mind.) However, left in its natural state, a fetus will indeed, by force of nature, become a person as you normally think of one. That's the point--left unfettered, an embryo will always move along its natural continuum until it reaches birth. Your listed exceptions of miscarriage and spontaneous abortion are hardly analogous to abortion, since they are natural interventions, whereas abortion is an artificial intervention. In other words, miscarriage is like a heart attack (a natural interruption of life), while abortion is more like a gunshot (an unnatural interruption of life).

 

I'll leave you with an opinion held by Peter Singer, whom I agree with w/r/t to continuity.

 

Against those who stress the continuity of our existence from conception to adulthood, he poses the example of an embryo in a dish on a laboratory bench, which he calls Mary. Now if it divides into two identical embryos, there is no way to answer the question whether Mary dies, or continues to exist, or is replaced by Jane and Susan. These are absurd questions, he thinks, and their absurdity casts doubt on the view that the embryo is a human being in the morally significant sense.

 

I'll be back in 60.

[ikol]

Against those who stress the continuity of our existence from conception to adulthood, he poses the example of an embryo in a dish on a laboratory bench, which he calls Mary. Now if it divides into two identical embryos, there is no way to answer the question whether Mary dies, or continues to exist, or is replaced by Jane and Susan. These are absurd questions, he thinks, and their absurdity casts doubt on the view that the embryo is a human being in the morally significant sense.

 

I don't see where the problem lies. Both embryos continue to develop into human beings just like the original one would have had it not split. Just because they lie on the continuum of human existence doesn't mean they can't do weird things that aren't possible in later stages.

[Beltmann]

Abortion is violence. I started out saying that. Like war, it is a barbaric solution to a human problem. But until there is a better solution, I have to defend a woman's (or couple's) right to make that call, and keep the government out of it.

Oh, M. Chris, I meant to write this earlier: I totally agree with the above.