What is the meaning of life for the atheist
in [Physics]
|
From: Excognito on 5 Aug 2010 20:30 On 5 Aug, 23:21, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > "Excognito" <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > The question > > is when does a fetus become a human being. > > ANSWER THAT or shut up. > > At the moment it is born, according to the law and the Constitution > says that all person's born in the US are citizens of the US. It > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. he US. It > > > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. > > Incorrect. Several states have laws on fetal homicide, some of which > define it as murder, some others as manslaughter; I haven't looked in > detail, but at least one explicitly contains an exemption for legal > abortion. Seehttp://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386 (link > posted previously in this thread) > > ---- > > Yeah, some states have laws saying killing a pregnant woman > is a double homicide. > > Regardless, he's point is silly. The Constitution is just defining > US born babies as citizens, not people. The distinction between > citizen and non-citizen is what is being made, not people verses > non-people. > > --oTTo-- I agree with this position, based upon my particular religious, scientific and experiential background. However, not everybody does and I also believe it necessary to try to understand the various positions to both challenge my own beliefs and to counter arguments I disagree with (intuition (gut-feel) *may* be right but may also be wrong and needs to be backed up by more objective reasoning). The extreme positions are that the unborn entity is not legally or morally human until it is delivered, or that it is human from the moment of conception. The middle ground attempts to define humanity as beginning at some developmental stage (based on, say, viability probability or brain maturity). This subject really does need sorting out as there are a number of human rights issues that are stalled due to (legitimate) fears of both sides of the pro-life and pro-choice argument. The definition of what distinguishes a human being worthy of protection by law impinges upon many 'freedoms' the mother-in-potential has. For example, there is no law (*) against drinking to excess in the privacy of your home, but extending legal protection to a 2nd or 3rd trimester child could see the woman charged with some felony and even jailed for the physical protection of her unborn child. Now there are those who would say 'too damn right' and those who would howl the houses down about infringement of personal liberty. And that's just for 'normal' development, once one introduces other cultural factors it gets even more complicated - should gender selection by abortion be countenanced, do 'severely' handicapped unborn children have different rights to life, can one carry out genetic 'enhancement', etc? However, getting back to the point about where we become human, ... It's not this simple and the analogy's not that tight, but consider the following. A law is passed protecting a certain species of butterfly and a certain amphibian. Would it be a legitimate defence to claim that it was OK to stamp on the associated larvae as they weren't, technically, butterflies or newts? What if it were a species of bird and somebody crushed the eggs? What if it were a species of mammal and somebody dropped a 'day after' pill in its food? I'm afraid I have this nagging feeling that the pro-choice attempts to define humanity are driven by self-serving needs rather than an impartial attempt to answer the question; ie, an attempt to get the 'right' answer through not having to accept that abortion involves the destruction of a human life. (*) By this, I mean in general in UK, US and European law - the fact that missisillybilly, the middle shegrooms islands or the canton of moronovia have by-laws against touching beer bottles on Wednesday is not significant to the thrust of the argument.
From: Mark Edwards on 5 Aug 2010 21:30 At what point is it murder, to abort a corporate entity? Mark Edwards -- Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
From: Excognito on 6 Aug 2010 11:00 On Aug 6, 1:25 am, SkyEyes <skyey...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Aug 5, 9:45 am, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > > > Competing rights?! Murder is murder. It's either a human being or > > it isn't. > > A first-trimester fetus is *not* a human "being," although it is human > tissue. It doesn't even have a functioning nervous system. > > > Killing a human being is the worst thing you can do. > > Actually, try wrapping your pointy little head around the fact that > there are way, *waaaaaay* worse things than merely not existing, > especially if you're just a blob of tissue that's never yet come close > to consciousness or sentience. > > > The question > > is when does a fetus become a human being. > > Up until the beginning of the third trimester, fetii do not even have > functioning nervous systems. Without a nervous system, they are not > human "beings," they're merely human *tissue*. > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > BAAWA Knight > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > skyeyes nine at cox dot net You are entitled to your opinion as to what constitutes a human being. I disagree with it. The embryonic and fetal stages are simply part of the development of a human being - it's how one gets from zygote to adult. The actual capabilities do not, IMO, define what a human being is, merely its maturity.
From: Excognito on 6 Aug 2010 14:52 On 6 Aug, 02:30, Mark Edwards <Mark-Edwa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > At what point is it murder, to abort a corporate entity? I bet Obama is asking himself that same question with regard to BP.
From: Excognito on 6 Aug 2010 18:56
On 6 Aug, 23:10, SkyEyes <skyey...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Aug 6, 8:58 am, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sorry, I don't have time to read the rest of your message at the moment, but .. >> And the concept of being forced to give birth doesn't imply direct >> control over the "physical movements" of a woman? In what universe? Not in the same sense that slavery does. Massa don't expect you to be livin' in the plantation slavin' in 'dem cotton fields. Don't be absurd. As I've said, you're twisting the definition of slavery to the point where it becomes meaningless. >> And the "economic value" argument is covered by the patriarchal >> tendency to regard women and children as men's chattel. Rubbish. I don't what you're drinking, but I'd like some too. Or are you stuck in some 17th century Parisian time warp? Trust me, children do not provide net economic gain to my family unit - I'd be far better off financially flushing them down the toilet. And they certainly don't regard themselves as being anything like my 'property' - on the contrary :-\ |