Catholic Church Calls for Civil Disobedience.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
I am looking at the situation entirely logically. You are the one slapping the label “human” on anything with human DNA. It’s a poorly phrased question because your definition of human is ambiguous.

I don’t, and there is no reason to, find the value of “human life” precious. Humans are animals. As such, the only thing MORE “precious” about human life than animal is the subjective conscious experience of individuals. If human-quality consciousness does not exist, there is nothing to make the biological matter any more precious than any other clump of biological matter. I really don’t see what is so inscrutable my logic here.

At least you are finally admitting that you find human life precious because you think its specialer (via its soul) than non-human life. [/quote]

Your logic is not bad, but I would argue that there is indeed a pecking order, though. A dog is more “special” than a slug, and monkey over an ant, etc. I don’t think you can honestly argue that killing a fly is on par with kill a human even though they are both living clumps of matter.
All of this swings on one contingent word, “life”. What exactly is life? Define that, and I am pretty sure you will discover the pecking order simultaneously.
I for one believe the definition lies in the metaphysical realm, for you can have all the right moving parts and still not be able to make “it” live. You can take the life out of the organism by destroying it’s physical being, but you cannot put life into an organism by creating a physical being.
What is life and where does it come from? That’s the question that needs answering. Otherwise, it’s just a whole lot of guessing.

142

I keep seeing the word consciousness. Does anyone remember what happened to them the first two years of life give or take 6 months? I have a 15 month old and he will never remember these days, but I sure will. Is he conscious if he does not remember? His mind is not fully developed, and he can not take care of himself. Does this make him more human than a clump of cells?

Pat hits the nail on the head with what is the definition of life? Most religious people will consider life at conception, and most scientists will say it is at 27 weeks because the baby can live outside the womb, but with a lot of help from machines.

Humans IMO are better than animals. We have the ability to read, write, paint, and use complex tools.

143

Of course there is a pecking order. And that pecking order is built on distinctions in the level of consciousness.

144

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I keep seeing the word consciousness. Does anyone remember what happened to them the first two years of life give or take 6 months? I have a 15 month old and he will never remember these days, but I sure will. Is he conscious if he does not remember? His mind is not fully developed, and he can not take care of himself. Does this make him more human than a clump of cells?

Pat hits the nail on the head with what is the definition of life? Most religious people will consider life at conception, and most scientists will say it is at 27 weeks because the baby can live outside the womb, but with a lot of help from machines.

Humans IMO are better than animals. We have the ability to read, write, paint, and use complex tools.[/quote]

Consciousness is just a feel good term so that they don’t feel so bad when they kill something that does not have a consciousness. Truth is other than the fact that we posses it, we know very little about it. There is no way what so ever to measure consciousness, so we don’t know when a baby gets it. Hell we don’t even know if a rock has it, it could and we would never know it.

145

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I keep seeing the word consciousness. Does anyone remember what happened to them the first two years of life give or take 6 months? I have a 15 month old and he will never remember these days, but I sure will. Is he conscious if he does not remember? His mind is not fully developed, and he can not take care of himself. Does this make him more human than a clump of cells?

Pat hits the nail on the head with what is the definition of life? Most religious people will consider life at conception, and most scientists will say it is at 27 weeks because the baby can live outside the womb, but with a lot of help from machines.

Humans IMO are better than animals. We have the ability to read, write, paint, and use complex tools.[/quote]

Consciousness is just a feel good term so that they don’t feel so bad when they kill something that does not have a consciousness. Truth is other than the fact that we posses it, we know very little about it. There is no way what so ever to measure consciousness, so we don’t know when a baby gets it. Hell we don’t even know if a rock has it, it could and we would never know it. [/quote]

Which brings me back to the point that the easiest measurable way to determine what is and isn’t an individual human being, is something having unique human DNA. I don’t see another way around it that isn’t either guessing or based on some arbitrary ideas about stages of development, ability to survive or some other such personal feelings on the matter.

V

146

So I guess you guys feel bad when you eat steak and chicken to get hyoooj.

Saying that “consciousness is just a feel good term” just shows that you know nothing about consciousness.

147

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Which brings me back to the point that the easiest measurable way to determine what is and isn’t an individual human being, is something having unique human DNA. I don’t see another way around it that isn’t either guessing or based on some arbitrary ideas about stages of development, ability to survive or some other such personal feelings on the matter.

V[/quote]

What is so special about human beings? Why do you care so much about killing things with human DNA but you advocate killing plenty of other mammals? What is the difference?

148

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Which brings me back to the point that the easiest measurable way to determine what is and isn’t an individual human being, is something having unique human DNA. I don’t see another way around it that isn’t either guessing or based on some arbitrary ideas about stages of development, ability to survive or some other such personal feelings on the matter.

V[/quote]

What is so special about human beings? Why do you care so much about killing things with human DNA but you advocate killing plenty of other mammals? What is the difference?[/quote]

Humans are the alpha in the food chain, we are also the most advanced. We are not talking about killing things here, we are talking about murder, there is a difference. We kill other animals (not just mammals) because we are hungry, there is a difference between killing something to sustain human life and murdering something because of a lack of respect and responsibility, jealousy, rage, etc.

We care about not murdering humans because there is no point of murdering a human.

When someone gets an abortion there is no chance to sustain the life of that baby, and neither does abortion sustain (actually creates a higher chance of problems) the mother’s life. She is not eating the baby for food, she is discarding it for selfish reasons.

149

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
your definition of human is ambiguous.
[/quote]

Ambiguous - amâ??bigâ??uâ??ous

â??adjective

  1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
  2. Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous.
  3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.
  4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.

Okay, well I looked up the definition to understand such a big word (like you and the word human). And I have to tell you that I am not quite sure how my use of the word “human” is ambiguous. I clearly stated what a human was, and if you really wish for me to define what I mean by human, again, I surely can.

Human - huâ??man

-noun

  1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

When I say the word human, which from now on just for you I’ll refer to it as H. sapiens, I am talking about the organism classified in the animal kingdom as a mammal, genus Homo, and species H. sapiens, it gets no clearer than that. You can go to a scientist in the middle of the African desert and he’ll understand, too. So, now there is no ambiguous meaning to my use of the word human, or H. sapiens, we can continue this debate.

P.S. Anything else you want me to define so you do not think I am trying to use ambiguous words?

150

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
We care about not murdering humans because there is no point of murdering a human.

When someone gets an abortion there is no chance to sustain the life of that baby, and neither does abortion sustain (actually creates a higher chance of problems) the mother’s life. She is not eating the baby for food, she is discarding it for selfish reasons.[/quote]

Well there we disagree. There is a point in “murdering a human” if it means getting an abortion. Ask someone who has had an abortion why they did it.

If by “murdering a human” you mean killing something without a fully developed human consciousness, then yes, I think it is acceptable in some cases.

As I’ve said, I’m pretty sure you would have few problems with killing a dog rather than a fetus. So your position is still based on human “specialness,” which is simply metaphysical bullshit. We shouldn’t make decisions for mothers based on metaphysical bullshit.

151

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
We care about not murdering humans because there is no point of murdering a human.

When someone gets an abortion there is no chance to sustain the life of that baby, and neither does abortion sustain (actually creates a higher chance of problems) the mother’s life. She is not eating the baby for food, she is discarding it for selfish reasons.[/quote]

Well there we disagree. There is a point in “murdering a human” if it means getting an abortion. Ask someone who has had an abortion why they did it.

If by “murdering a human” you mean killing something without a fully developed human consciousness, then yes, I think it is acceptable in some cases.

As I’ve said, I’m pretty sure you would have few problems with killing a dog rather than a fetus. So your position is still based on human “specialness,” which is simply metaphysical bullshit. We shouldn’t make decisions for mothers based on metaphysical bullshit.[/quote]

I’m starting to think abortion might be the right thing in certain circumstances. How do you tell ahead of time though, thats the hard part.

V

152

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I always wonder where the gals are when this topic comes up.I guess they’re tired of being told by all the never to be pregnant vocal guys what they should or should not be allowed to do.Oh well…

Yea, when telling someone what to do involves telling them not to kill other human beings. It doesn’t make them any different than any man I would also tell to not kill another human being. You just like to spin the argument so that you attach your view of an embryo as not human to my beliefs scientific, or religious or whatever and then demonize me based on your belief systems. If you would take two seconds and look at it from my belief system that an embryo is in fact a human being a deserving of protection under societal laws and natural laws, I.E. the right to life, then I’m not telling a woman what to do, only that killing the human growing iside of her will be prosecuted as killing a human.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, though that would be nice. Come up with some scientific argument that is valid that shows us that an embryo is not human, and we will be able to have a nice debate. If you just want me to change what I believe to fit your view of the world, well then shouldn’t I expect you to do the same thing? Heck I’m even providing scientific data to help you on your path to my viewpoint, you give me nothing but sarcasm.

V

You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about your viewpoint.I don’t.I don’t expect you to change.I don’t want to change your viewpoint.You feel like I’ve demonized you?Where?Show me.You’ll look long and hard,but I’ll wait.Is it because I believe women have the right to choose what they can and cannot do as regards something that ,unfortunately for you,is their domain?That makes you feel persecuted?So disagreement equals persecution?

Tell me,do the innocents of wars that are euphemistically dubbed ‘collateral damage’ have any less right to live,in your point of view?As I mentioned earlier,IVF? How’s your viewpoint on fertility practices in general?What I would like is some philosophical consistency.Either killing innocent human beings is wrong,or it isn’t.That’s when all the “Well,no but,in some cases…(insert favorite scenario here) it’s sad but unavoidable” shuffling starts.

And that’s even before we get to the point of where does the line in the sand stand as far as what is or what isn’t a ‘human being’ starts to get debated.

I believe that the morality of these things is between each person and whatever moral authority or code they adhere to.Women have been having abortions since the beginning of time,and will continue to do so.Do you think you or any other swinging cock will change that?Why do you think that is?Would you rather have it go into the back alleys again?

I am pro choice.That is not the same a being a fervent advocate of abortion.I believe that prevention is better,and that contraception and education is preferable,but that shit happens and people sometimes have to make difficult choices.I would rather have those hard choices be made out in the open.
[/quote]

To give you a quick answer to a question you posed and then perhaps projected a little bit on, yes I do view every single “innocent” human life as having the right to live. Doesn’t matter if that life was made in a clinic, via the old fashioned dick to pussy transaction, or if your mom sat on a toilet seat with cum on it and get herself preggers. As a society, we should strive to protect the lives of our fellow humans and prosecute those who violate those rights. So basically what I am saying is I am all for prosecuting anyone who has taken by active decision, another human life under murder 1. Accidental deaths can be handled by manslaughter or other lesser charges but no one gets a pass.

Obviously in this barbaric time we live in, it’s going to be really hard to hold our own military to the same standards. However, I am at total disagreement with our current military ventures and believe we should pull our guys back to our borders until someone puts a bomb on our soil or tries to put boots on our soil. I think we should be fighting terrorists with the CIA, undercover special ops guys who go in and either eliminate known terrorists or bring them in to face thier crimes.

This whole thing is off the topic though. Was my argument too strong for you to just answer straight up? Why make me chase all these tangents down. Of course I have to or else you will accuse me of dodging your questions or accusations.

To get to the part of you demonizing me, you didn’t demonize me specifically, you just demonized anyone who was pro life with the post about running the women out of the discussion. We ran them out because we are insensitive and will never understand the pain they go through yet we sit and make these decisions for them or try to. That was your point, and it’s main spear is an attempt to make pro life people look like insensitive men with no respect for women. Unfortunatley it’s not true and I suspect that my argument got you uncomfortable else someone who doesn’t care what I think or believe wouldn’t have typed up a 5 paragraph response to my post.

Now back to my origional request, bring some science to the table telling me exactly when a human comes into existance. For you to say it’s not relevant is assenine and you my friend are just dodging. Do that or go away.

V[/quote]

So, are you suggesting that a woman should be charged with manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? Because, in a sense she unintentionally killed the fetus inside of her?

Or, do you then think that any president/world leader who declares war should also be charged with murder/manslaughter since “collateral damage” is pretty much an inescapable reality of modern warfare/bombing? A fact which they must have known before declaring war.

Or, even if by some miracle no civilians were killed during a war, that say any president/world leader who declared war on a non-invading country (since I think most would agree that self defense does not constitute murder) should be charged with mass murder? After all, many of the enemy troops that were killed in such a war may have simply felt that they were defending themselves (thus justified in their attempts to kill their perceived attackers)?

If not, then do you think that someone who kills someone in defense of their life, or an innocent’s life should also be charged with murder? In other words, do you then believe that there is no situation/occasion where killing is justified?

Not saying that I disagree with your assertion that life is precious, just trying to figure out where (if anywhere) and for what reasons you “draw the line”. And maybe provoking some more discussion about the topic of when (if ever) you/others think that killing is justified.[/quote]

There is a distinction between murder and killing. About the miscarriage, I think I already addressed this, it would be absurd to say anyone is at fault when something, as traumatizing and unfortunate as it is, happens that is obviously out of the control of the mother.

There is a difference between doing something malicious and ending somethings life, and when something happens accidentally.

On the President situation, there is many people in the world who try to press war crimes against Bush and other government officials. However, there will be collateral damage in war, which you try to prevent and if the President advocates or dictates the soldiers should make collateral damage in war then yes they should be pressed with charges.

If the soldiers however are the ones at fault for the collateral damage themselves by being neglectful or malicious in the actions (mowing down a village for no reason, etc.) then they should be taken court martial and charges be pressed.[/quote]

But the distinction between murder and killing is one that seems to be different depending upon the social/ethical standards that one was raised with. Some people believe that killing for any reason is murder (even plants and animals in some cases), others believe that killing for self defense isn’t murder, others believe that killing for the “good of the many” is not murder, etc…

I also question whether you actually know anyone who has had an abortion, because there is nothing “malicious” about it in all the cases that I have personally known. It’s an extremely difficult and emotional decision to be made and not one that is done with the coldheartedness which you seem to ascribe it.

What I was trying to illustrate with the above questions is that just about everyone believes that killing is justified if “insert exception to the rule” occurs. What those specific conditions are though can vary depending on the social/ethical code that the person subscribes to.

What if, like Vegita said, the miscarriage was due to the mother abusing drugs? Then should she be charged with manslaughter? What if she slipped and fell down the stairs? What if it was due to poor nutrition?

My point is that it’s seldom as black and white as people would like it to be. Each situation should be looked at on an individual basis. The same thing is true in the case of intentionally killing another human being (whatever level of development they be at).

In regards to the president situation, by acknowledging that collateral damage will occur in war you are acknowledging that by declaring war the president is willfully declaring the killing of innocents. You as a civilian realize that collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of modern warfare, so it’s pretty safe to say that the president is also aware of this reality. Now, whether that means that he is guilty of “murder” again depends on what ehtical model you’re using to judge the situation by.

Let’s say for example that there was a group of terrorists barrakaded in a building with innocent hostages and you knew that if you didn’t put an end to the terrorists lives that they would kill millions of other innocent civilians. Let’s assume that there was no way that you could get to and kill the terrorists without also killing the civilians. Would then killing the civilians be considered murder? If yes, they why? If no, then why not?

And to make it so that you could not emotionally distance yourself from the situation, let’s say that your family was among the hostages (god forbid that you should ever have to face such a choice, I truly hope that you nor anyone else reading this does).

153

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
So I guess you guys feel bad when you eat steak and chicken to get hyoooj.

Saying that “consciousness is just a feel good term” just shows that you know nothing about consciousness.[/quote]

And you know all about consciousness? You can determine what it is, and when something posses it or does not posses it?

People are making an assumption that when a fetus starts having brain activity it is then experiencing consciousness. That cannot be determined. You cannot determine what has consciousness and when it gets it.

Consciousness is simply an awareness. All I can know about consciousness is that I posses some faction of it, but I don’t know if it is mine or if it is part of something else. I don’t know that anything besides myself has it, because there is no way to determine that. I don’t know if the tree outside my house has a “higher level” of consciousness then I do.

So yes, many pro-abortion advocates use the word consciousness as a feel good term to say that something they deem does not have it, is not actually killing a person. Problem is, you won’t know and can never know what has a consciousness and what does not, period.

154

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
We care about not murdering humans because there is no point of murdering a human.

When someone gets an abortion there is no chance to sustain the life of that baby, and neither does abortion sustain (actually creates a higher chance of problems) the mother’s life. She is not eating the baby for food, she is discarding it for selfish reasons.[/quote]

Well there we disagree. There is a point in “murdering a human” if it means getting an abortion. Ask someone who has had an abortion why they did it.

If by “murdering a human” you mean killing something without a fully developed human consciousness, then yes, I think it is acceptable in some cases.

As I’ve said, I’m pretty sure you would have few problems with killing a dog rather than a fetus. So your position is still based on human “specialness,” which is simply metaphysical bullshit. We shouldn’t make decisions for mothers based on metaphysical bullshit.[/quote]

I’m starting to think abortion might be the right thing in certain circumstances. How do you tell ahead of time though, thats the hard part.

V[/quote]

You can’t. You cannot determine who or what has a consciousness and how much of it they posses. So if you act on an abortion based on this kind of shitty mental masturbation then you have to accept that you just may have whacked a human being.

Do you think you would have ever existed if you were terminated as a zygote?

155

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I always wonder where the gals are when this topic comes up.I guess they’re tired of being told by all the never to be pregnant vocal guys what they should or should not be allowed to do.Oh well…

Yea, when telling someone what to do involves telling them not to kill other human beings. It doesn’t make them any different than any man I would also tell to not kill another human being. You just like to spin the argument so that you attach your view of an embryo as not human to my beliefs scientific, or religious or whatever and then demonize me based on your belief systems. If you would take two seconds and look at it from my belief system that an embryo is in fact a human being a deserving of protection under societal laws and natural laws, I.E. the right to life, then I’m not telling a woman what to do, only that killing the human growing iside of her will be prosecuted as killing a human.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, though that would be nice. Come up with some scientific argument that is valid that shows us that an embryo is not human, and we will be able to have a nice debate. If you just want me to change what I believe to fit your view of the world, well then shouldn’t I expect you to do the same thing? Heck I’m even providing scientific data to help you on your path to my viewpoint, you give me nothing but sarcasm.

V

You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about your viewpoint.I don’t.I don’t expect you to change.I don’t want to change your viewpoint.You feel like I’ve demonized you?Where?Show me.You’ll look long and hard,but I’ll wait.Is it because I believe women have the right to choose what they can and cannot do as regards something that ,unfortunately for you,is their domain?That makes you feel persecuted?So disagreement equals persecution?

Tell me,do the innocents of wars that are euphemistically dubbed ‘collateral damage’ have any less right to live,in your point of view?As I mentioned earlier,IVF? How’s your viewpoint on fertility practices in general?What I would like is some philosophical consistency.Either killing innocent human beings is wrong,or it isn’t.That’s when all the “Well,no but,in some cases…(insert favorite scenario here) it’s sad but unavoidable” shuffling starts.

And that’s even before we get to the point of where does the line in the sand stand as far as what is or what isn’t a ‘human being’ starts to get debated.

I believe that the morality of these things is between each person and whatever moral authority or code they adhere to.Women have been having abortions since the beginning of time,and will continue to do so.Do you think you or any other swinging cock will change that?Why do you think that is?Would you rather have it go into the back alleys again?

I am pro choice.That is not the same a being a fervent advocate of abortion.I believe that prevention is better,and that contraception and education is preferable,but that shit happens and people sometimes have to make difficult choices.I would rather have those hard choices be made out in the open.
[/quote]

To give you a quick answer to a question you posed and then perhaps projected a little bit on, yes I do view every single “innocent” human life as having the right to live. Doesn’t matter if that life was made in a clinic, via the old fashioned dick to pussy transaction, or if your mom sat on a toilet seat with cum on it and get herself preggers. As a society, we should strive to protect the lives of our fellow humans and prosecute those who violate those rights. So basically what I am saying is I am all for prosecuting anyone who has taken by active decision, another human life under murder 1. Accidental deaths can be handled by manslaughter or other lesser charges but no one gets a pass.

Obviously in this barbaric time we live in, it’s going to be really hard to hold our own military to the same standards. However, I am at total disagreement with our current military ventures and believe we should pull our guys back to our borders until someone puts a bomb on our soil or tries to put boots on our soil. I think we should be fighting terrorists with the CIA, undercover special ops guys who go in and either eliminate known terrorists or bring them in to face thier crimes.

This whole thing is off the topic though. Was my argument too strong for you to just answer straight up? Why make me chase all these tangents down. Of course I have to or else you will accuse me of dodging your questions or accusations.

To get to the part of you demonizing me, you didn’t demonize me specifically, you just demonized anyone who was pro life with the post about running the women out of the discussion. We ran them out because we are insensitive and will never understand the pain they go through yet we sit and make these decisions for them or try to. That was your point, and it’s main spear is an attempt to make pro life people look like insensitive men with no respect for women. Unfortunatley it’s not true and I suspect that my argument got you uncomfortable else someone who doesn’t care what I think or believe wouldn’t have typed up a 5 paragraph response to my post.

Now back to my origional request, bring some science to the table telling me exactly when a human comes into existance. For you to say it’s not relevant is assenine and you my friend are just dodging. Do that or go away.

V[/quote]

So, are you suggesting that a woman should be charged with manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? Because, in a sense she unintentionally killed the fetus inside of her?

Or, do you then think that any president/world leader who declares war should also be charged with murder/manslaughter since “collateral damage” is pretty much an inescapable reality of modern warfare/bombing? A fact which they must have known before declaring war.

Or, even if by some miracle no civilians were killed during a war, that say any president/world leader who declared war on a non-invading country (since I think most would agree that self defense does not constitute murder) should be charged with mass murder? After all, many of the enemy troops that were killed in such a war may have simply felt that they were defending themselves (thus justified in their attempts to kill their perceived attackers)?

If not, then do you think that someone who kills someone in defense of their life, or an innocent’s life should also be charged with murder? In other words, do you then believe that there is no situation/occasion where killing is justified?

Not saying that I disagree with your assertion that life is precious, just trying to figure out where (if anywhere) and for what reasons you “draw the line”. And maybe provoking some more discussion about the topic of when (if ever) you/others think that killing is justified.[/quote]

There is a distinction between murder and killing. About the miscarriage, I think I already addressed this, it would be absurd to say anyone is at fault when something, as traumatizing and unfortunate as it is, happens that is obviously out of the control of the mother.

There is a difference between doing something malicious and ending somethings life, and when something happens accidentally.

On the President situation, there is many people in the world who try to press war crimes against Bush and other government officials. However, there will be collateral damage in war, which you try to prevent and if the President advocates or dictates the soldiers should make collateral damage in war then yes they should be pressed with charges.

If the soldiers however are the ones at fault for the collateral damage themselves by being neglectful or malicious in the actions (mowing down a village for no reason, etc.) then they should be taken court martial and charges be pressed.[/quote]

But the distinction between murder and killing is one that seems to be different depending upon the social/ethical standards that one was raised with. Some people believe that killing for any reason is murder (even plants and animals in some cases), others believe that killing for self defense isn’t murder, others believe that killing for the “good of the many” is not murder, etc…

I also question whether you actually know anyone who has had an abortion, because there is nothing “malicious” about it in all the cases that I have personally known. It’s an extremely difficult and emotional decision to be made and not one that is done with the coldheartedness which you seem to ascribe it.

What I was trying to illustrate with the above questions is that just about everyone believes that killing is justified if “insert exception to the rule” occurs. What those specific conditions are though can vary depending on the social/ethical code that the person subscribes to.

What if, like Vegita said, the miscarriage was due to the mother abusing drugs? Then should she be charged with manslaughter? What if she slipped and fell down the stairs? What if it was due to poor nutrition?

My point is that it’s seldom as black and white as people would like it to be. Each situation should be looked at on an individual basis. The same thing is true in the case of intentionally killing another human being (whatever level of development they be at).

In regards to the president situation, by acknowledging that collateral damage will occur in war you are acknowledging that by declaring war the president is willfully declaring the killing of innocents. You as a civilian realize that collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of modern warfare, so it’s pretty safe to say that the president is also aware of this reality. Now, whether that means that he is guilty of “murder” again depends on what ehtical model you’re using to judge the situation by.

Let’s say for example that there was a group of terrorists barrakaded in a building with innocent hostages and you knew that if you didn’t put an end to the terrorists lives that they would kill millions of other innocent civilians. Let’s assume that there was no way that you could get to and kill the terrorists without also killing the civilians. Would then killing the civilians be considered murder? If yes, they why? If no, then why not?

And to make it so that you could not emotionally distance yourself from the situation, let’s say that your family was among the hostages (god forbid that you should ever have to face such a choice, I truly hope that you nor anyone else reading this does).
[/quote]

I appreciate you trying to pin us down on a specific black and white set of rules or whatever, but in reality, having an abortion has absolutely nothing to do with choosing to kill my family which is being held hostage by some extremists who if I don’t kill them all, millions of innocents will die. I mean it’s a nice hypothetical conundrum, but the reality of abortion is not even on the same scale as the example you gave.

To give you my overview on life again, I am for the preservation of all life. I am for the protection of human lives. I view a human fetus as a human life from the point it has idividual, complete human DNA. The only resonable time to kill another human being is if you are protecting yourself or other innocents from death or percieved threat of death. So under this set of core values and beliefs, I do not need to answer your hypothetical for you to understand my point of view. There is no right answer and any attempt at answering does not give anyone any insight to the abortion debate, nor does it prove that abortions are either good or bad.

Our judicial system has been set up to do percicely what you are worrying about, to determine on an individual basis if a crime has been commited or if an accident has occured. One will result in charges against a responsible party, the other will just be left as it is. That system is not perfect and an innocent person may get tagged with a crime and a guilty person may be not charged when they were in fact responsible for the death, but you can’t justify the slaying of hundreds of thousands of unborn humans because our judicial system isn’t perfect. Hell why don’t we just nuke all of our country so no one is ever wrongly convicted. Makes sense doesn’t it?

V

156

[quote]pat wrote:
Do you think you would have ever existed if you were terminated as a zygote?[/quote]

That’s a pretty fucking stupid question. Here’s a better one: Do you think I would care if I never existed?

Why are you making a big deal about trees possibly having consciousness? You use paper don’t you? You eat animals. Stop pulling a bunch of bullshit here and just come out and say that you think humans are more special than everything else in the universe for no particular reason other than that you happen to be classified as one in an arbitrary grouping by scientists who divided the natural kingdom into arbitrary groups of species.

You are right in one respect. I don’t know that anything else has consciousness. I guess you must be a solipsist then? Oh? You aren’t? Then fuck off. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

There is good evidence for degrees of consciousness and while I am the first to admit there are no bright lines, there are shades of grey. If anyone actually cares about consciousness in this thread, rather than some “feel good” “masturbatory” ideas about the specialness of humans, then I suggest this book: http://www.amazon.com/Wider-than-Sky-Phenomenal-Consciousness/dp/0300102291

157

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
We care about not murdering humans because there is no point of murdering a human.

When someone gets an abortion there is no chance to sustain the life of that baby, and neither does abortion sustain (actually creates a higher chance of problems) the mother’s life. She is not eating the baby for food, she is discarding it for selfish reasons.[/quote]

Well there we disagree. There is a point in “murdering a human” if it means getting an abortion. Ask someone who has had an abortion why they did it.

If by “murdering a human” you mean killing something without a fully developed human consciousness, then yes, I think it is acceptable in some cases.

As I’ve said, I’m pretty sure you would have few problems with killing a dog rather than a fetus. So your position is still based on human “specialness,” which is simply metaphysical bullshit. We shouldn’t make decisions for mothers based on metaphysical bullshit.[/quote]

I’m starting to think abortion might be the right thing in certain circumstances. How do you tell ahead of time though, thats the hard part.

V[/quote]

You can’t. You cannot determine who or what has a consciousness and how much of it they posses. So if you act on an abortion based on this kind of shitty mental masturbation then you have to accept that you just may have whacked a human being.

Do you think you would have ever existed if you were terminated as a zygote?[/quote]

You missed my sarcasm my friend, of course it’s flawed logic, I thought by the sheer rediculous nature of the post I was responding to it would be clear that I was insinuating it would have been good had he been aborted but the trouble with knowing ahead of time that he would turn out to be such an idiot. Of course I don’t really think he should have been aborted, I was just screwing around with what seems like little sucess at wit or humor. :frowning:

V

158

Think about all those possible humans that we could be creating if women were always pregnant. This is a great tragedy. So many people who could be alive who aren’t. They must be so sad they don’t exist.

159

But “Oh” say you. “When conception occurs the soul enters the physical cells and takes up residence! We are only under a duty to preserve souls that have entered into cells, not create new ones! You are murdering those souls when you abort a 2 week old body of dividing cells! Aren’t you glad, and haven’t you been glad since you were conceived that no one aborted you?!?!”

(do you guys create souls when you have sex? I guess technically god does that right? or are the souls like in a long waiting line, just waiting for a body? If that’s the case I guess we should be having as much sex as possible)

Pretty “rediculous”

160

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
Think about all those possible humans that we could be creating if women were always pregnant. This is a great tragedy. So many people who could be alive who aren’t. They must be so sad they don’t exist. [/quote]

Why are you guys bothering with this? Seriously, if he thinks something like the above is germane, and an effective counter-argument, I wouldn’t even bother.