|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 28, 2018 21:14:04 GMT
It is interesting that people have different views on what matters as regards our humanity or our right to life. You say it is awareness and consciousness. Others (such as a gentleman I spoke to in my pro-life canvassing) believe it is a heartbeat. Others argue that it is ability to survive independently of the mother's body. But is it enough to state such claims? Does there not have to be argument justifying why THIS point should be chosen?
My own view is that the only rational origin for the right to life is the beginning of life, the moment of conception. It is the first moment when a new human being comes into existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Apr 29, 2018 2:59:04 GMT
It is interesting that people have different views on what matters as regards our humanity or our right to life. You say it is awareness and consciousness. Others (such as a gentleman I spoke to in my pro-life canvassing) believe it is a heartbeat. Others argue that it is ability to survive independently of the mother's body. But is it enough to state such claims? Does there not have to be argument justifying why THIS point should be chosen? My own view is that the only rational origin for the right to life is the beginning of life, the moment of conception. It is the first moment when a new human being comes into existence. During yesterday's news reports about the archeological discovery of 140 children ritually sacrificed by the pre-Columbus Picchu peoples,I couldn't help but notice the repeated use of the term PICCHU CIVILISATION. Couldn't volumes be written about this?, the usage OR NOT of the word CIVILISATION? Does a civilisation finish off it's own children? |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Apr 29, 2018 4:28:35 GMT
It is interesting that people have different views on what matters as regards our humanity or our right to life. You say it is awareness and consciousness. Others (such as a gentleman I spoke to in my pro-life canvassing) believe it is a heartbeat. Others argue that it is ability to survive independently of the mother's body. But is it enough to state such claims? Does there not have to be argument justifying why THIS point should be chosen? My own view is that the only rational origin for the right to life is the beginning of life, the moment of conception. It is the first moment when a new human being comes into existence. During yesterday's news reports about the archeological discovery of 140 children ritually sacrificed by the pre-Columbus Picchu peoples,I couldn't help but notice the repeated use of the term PICCHU CIVILISATION. Couldn't volumes be written about this?, the usage OR NOT of the word CIVILISATION? Does a civilisation finish off it's own children? Sorry,CHIMÚ peoples |
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 29, 2018 10:57:31 GMT
The thing about the "awareness/consciousness" argument, to me, is that I don't see how it wouldn't justify giving a lethal injection to someone who was fast asleep, if you thought that killing them would spare them or someone else a lot of suffering. They would not suffer and they wouldn't feel fear. Take, for instance, a hopeless alcoholic who was a burden to his family. You might say they are simply not conscious at that moment, but they will be soon, in the natural order of things. But the same is true of the fetus. Awareness or consciousness can't be the mark of human life deserving of protection, because we all spend time unconscious every night. Conciousness/awareness is a simplified first approximation. There are other things to take into account. Maybe I should say capacity to be conscious. I think we all intuitively have this metric. Killing a fly is not the same as killing a cat. From fly to mouse to chimpanzees there is an increasing level of sophistication in the brain with levels of awareness. With pregnancy it begins as one cell and ends with a concious being. Drawing a clear dividing line is difficult but in the early days it is not conscious/aware it is a collection of cells like an organ. The drunk is already a fully developed adult with the capacity for conciousness. They may be asleep but there is still unconcious activity going on. |
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 29, 2018 11:07:57 GMT
It is interesting that people have different views on what matters as regards our humanity or our right to life. You say it is awareness and consciousness. Others (such as a gentleman I spoke to in my pro-life canvassing) believe it is a heartbeat. Others argue that it is ability to survive independently of the mother's body. But is it enough to state such claims? Does there not have to be argument justifying why THIS point should be chosen? My own view is that the only rational origin for the right to life is the beginning of life, the moment of conception. It is the first moment when a new human being comes into existence. At one end is a single cell and the other is a baby, a concious being. It is nearly impossible to draw a line as the process is gradual yet we must draw a line. Equating the cell/cells with equal value to a baby/adult is absurd. Think of another gradual process - becoming an adult. By convention we say it occurs on the 18th birthday. So someone can legally drink but hours before it is a crime. You could reasonably argue nothing substantial has occurred in those few hours so if he is responsible to drink now he was responsible yesterday too. With this reasoning you could daisychain your way back to toddlers drinking by saying at each day nothing's changed that much. The medical definition of death is brain death the lack of activity in the brain. We have artificial respirators that can keep the body breathing and heart pumping that doesn't matter it's - conciousness/brain states which matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 29, 2018 12:18:33 GMT
I think the difference between underage drinking and taking a human life can hardly be exaggerated. One may admit of a legal convention, since it doesn't matter enormously if someone has a drink a little too young. But when we take a human life, legal conventions just aren't enough. We need metaphysical certainties.
|
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 29, 2018 13:13:09 GMT
I think the difference between underage drinking and taking a human life can hardly be exaggerated. One may admit of a legal convention, since it doesn't matter enormously if someone has a drink a little too young. But when we take a human life, legal conventions just aren't enough. We need metaphysical certainties. It was just an analogy for the difficulty of drawing a line in a gradual process. A single cell or group of cells does not have conciousness. There are no lights on so to speak at any level therefore to kill them is not the same as killing a thinking human being. There is a distinction here and it matters |
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Apr 29, 2018 17:44:54 GMT
Isn´t this a distinct/unique person "in becoming" no less? Hardly some vaguely abstract cell/cells! To attempt to draw a line in hers or his developement, going at some sudden point from non-existent to existent, would seem not only to be difficult and arbitrary but even fundamentally wrong. No one should play at life and death matters like that as it was simply some question of harmless human engineering. There are no divine doctors in that respect. Abysmally wrong more like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 29, 2018 18:22:49 GMT
Isn´t this a distinct/unique person "in becoming" no less? Hardly some vaguely abstract cell/cells! To attempt to draw a line in hers or his developement, going at some sudden point from non-existent to existent, would seem not only to be difficult and arbitrary but even fundamentally wrong. No one should play at life and death matters like that as it was simply some question of harmless human engineering. There are no divine doctors in that respect. Abysmally wrong more like it. Why is it wrong? It is just cells where the lights are not on. And it is not the same as a 7 month foetus for example. It matters because in some unfortunate situations we have to balance between serious risk to a woman and risk to a developing foetus. We cannot say they are the exact same, because they are not. We have to ask questions and consider things like, conciousness, awareness etc |
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 29, 2018 18:34:14 GMT
Isn´t this a distinct/unique person "in becoming" no less? Hardly some vaguely abstract cell/cells! To attempt to draw a line in hers or his developement, going at some sudden point from non-existent to existent, would seem not only to be difficult and arbitrary but even fundamentally wrong. No one should play at life and death matters like that as it was simply some question of harmless human engineering. There are no divine doctors in that respect. Abysmally wrong more like it. As I was saying it is difficult and arbitrary to draw a line in a gradual process but none the less it has to be done. We can't have toddlers drinking and we can't have a single cell equal in value to a newborn baby. And I'd say you agree, if one had to be killed you'd pick the single cell everytime because there is a difference. As the foetus develops and becomes gradually more developed we have increasingly more duty to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Apr 29, 2018 20:41:52 GMT
Isn´t this a distinct/unique person "in becoming" no less? Hardly some vaguely abstract cell/cells! To attempt to draw a line in hers or his developement, going at some sudden point from non-existent to existent, would seem not only to be difficult and arbitrary but even fundamentally wrong. No one should play at life and death matters like that as it was simply some question of harmless human engineering. There are no divine doctors in that respect. Abysmally wrong more like it. Why is it wrong? It is just cells where the lights are not on. And it is not the same as a 7 month foetus for example. It matters because in some unfortunate situations we have to balance between serious risk to a woman and risk to a developing foetus. We cannot say they are the exact same, because they are not. We have to ask questions and consider things like, conciousness, awareness etc It must be wrong since that human being was meant to be (nothing in one personal life happens solely by chance) and by getting deliberately put to death that unique person will never see the light of day. There may by a thousand reasons for not making it all the way into the light. If the pregnant woman´s life is in danger Church teaching already provide allowance for exceptions. It´s the bending of true purpose and deliberate killing that is an obvious wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 29, 2018 22:38:14 GMT
As I was saying it is difficult and arbitrary to draw a line in a gradual process but none the less it has to be done. We can't have toddlers drinking and we can't have a single cell equal in value to a newborn baby. And I'd say you agree, if one had to be killed you'd pick the single cell everytime because there is a difference.. But I don't agree. I believe every human life is equal in value from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. What situation are you envisaging where one has to be killed? |
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 29, 2018 22:39:52 GMT
You say that the person was meant to be and that nothing in a personal life happens by chance - how do you know that, I think you are asserting that point of view.
Who is being put to death? There is no "who" - there is no consciousness being extinguished in the early days at least. You could say that a "potential" person is being denied life but then how can you deny something to someone who doesn't exist? Surely I am denying all my potential unborn children life by not procreating as much as possible right now?
The Church refers to the Roman Catholic Church? That may be your faith but non-members don't have to follow those rules.
"The bending of true purpose and deliberate killing" - this is a complicated issue with nuance and subtlety. No one does it lightheartedly.
You say it is obviously wrong and others have asserted that but do you have reasons for why it is wrong? Reasons that we can all access and appreciate?
|
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 29, 2018 22:48:23 GMT
As I was saying it is difficult and arbitrary to draw a line in a gradual process but none the less it has to be done. We can't have toddlers drinking and we can't have a single cell equal in value to a newborn baby. And I'd say you agree, if one had to be killed you'd pick the single cell everytime because there is a difference.. But I don't agree. I believe every human life is equal in value from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. What situation are you envisaging where one has to be killed? It was just a thought experiment, so the situation doesn't matter just the underline point. But I will try to flesh it out if you wish. Say you are in a clinic which has been evacuated due to a bomb which will explode in 2 min and you discover a baby in a cot and next to it a big box of 20 frozen fertilised eggs. You only have time to carry the baby or the box out of harms way. It's a terrible choice but if all human life is equal logically you want to save the maximum number I presume? The problem with thought experiments is people nitpick the scenario rather than address the underlying point. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 29, 2018 22:48:55 GMT
You seem to be proceeding from an axiom that consciousness is the defining feature of human life. Where do you get this? Why should anyone agree with this? It seems like a purely ad hoc position to justify abortion.
|
|
