|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2006 : 22:30:40 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
At conception, it is alive, right? So if not human life, then what sort of life is it? I'm talking about the biological fact, not any cultural qualifiers like personhood. Biologically, once there is all the genetic material together and the thing is consuming, producing waste, and growing, it is alive and of whatever species its genetic code dictates.
Technically you could say that each individual sperm and egg cell are "alive".
The whole "abortion debate" is a false debate. The real question is what constitutes a human life. There is no clear answer so the participants are forced to draw arbitrary lines.
Some people will say that conception is when life begins, others will disagree and say that human life begins when the fetus is able to survive outside thw womb.
My personal opinion on this whole debate: There are more important things in this world that life. Freedom, liberty, etc... you ask almost anyone and they will agree that there are several things more important to them than their own life. The right of a woman to determine the use to which her body will be put is right up there with every person's right to not be a slave, imo.
No one has the right to force a woman to bear a child she does not want to bear.
quote:
You are making a blanket accusation against me that I have generally “taken it upon yourself to bitch at anyone on these boards you deem to be ‘rude'.” I didn't accuse Half of being rude,
I never said you called him rude. I said you were rude to him, and that you were a hypocrit for complaining about the rudeness of others while being rude yourself.
quote:
(well, I know it's not hypocrisy in this instance since I didn't accuse you of being rude, but whatever, Dude says I'm a hypocrite)
You're a hypocrit for being rude and having the audacity to complain about other people being rude. How many times do I have to say it?
quote:
Tell ya what, I won't use the word “rude” anymore because clearly it causes confusion and gets (at least your) emotions running high.
I could give a shit how rude you are, or how often you accuse anyone of being rude.
What is irritating is you doing them both.
If you want to be rude, whatever. If you want to accuse people of being rude, whatever.
If you want to be rude and accuse people of being rude.... then we are going to have issues.
Skepticism, by it's nature, is going to be rude and offensive to somebody. There is no real polite way to tell somebody they are full of shit. Even informing them that they are wrong will offend alot of people, no matter how carefully you phrase it.
So seriously, just stop bitching at people for what you consider "rudeness".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 00:16:41 [Permalink]
|
To Dave W.:I just can't accept that just because the zygote dies due to a genetic defect that that means it was never alive to begin with. Indeed, most fatal genetic defects occur very early in a pregnancy and the mother doesn't even know she was pregnant, but others happen much later, even in the third trimester sometimes.
I've been afraid to say that the zygote has the “potential” to do all the stuff that alive things do because you could come back at me with the whole sperm and egg also having that potential. But the difference is that the zygote is the complete organism. Just because it has a fatal genetic flaw and only lives for a few hours or a few days or weeks or months, doesn't mean it is not alive. One of the things that is always a biological definition of life requirement is the ability to reproduce. Humans don't have that ability until they mature to a certain age. But if a girl dies before she reaches puberty, and thus never reached her potential to reproduce, we don't say she wasn't alive. If one reads about the human life cycle, it begins with the fertilized egg. I know you don't mean it this way, but the refusal to call a zygote “human life” seems to me more like a political choice of term, rather than biological choice of term.
Maybe we can just agree to disagree on this.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 00:46:49 [Permalink]
|
To Dude:quote:
Technically you could say that each individual sperm and egg cell are "alive".
You could say that but they do not meet any debated biological definition. They cannot reproduce themselves. They are parts used in the reproduction of humans. A sperm or egg are only “alive” in the same sense that a heart of lung are alive. Quite different from being a discrete living organism.
quote:
My personal opinion on this whole debate: There are more important things in this world that life.
I absolutely agree. That's why I'm not afraid to admit that a zygote and a second trimester fetus is both a human life, but also one that should not have rights above the reproductive rights of the mother.
quote:
No one has the right to force a woman to bear a child she does not want to bear.
So you are siding on the other extreme of birth? I guess what I mean to ask is, are you taking the stance that no types of abortions should be banned or regulated?
quote:
I said you were rude to him, and that you were a hypocrit for complaining about the rudeness of others while being rude yourself.
Yes, and I am complaining that you are taking that out of context. I don't even know what instance of me calling you rude that you are talking about. The term “rude” can mean different things in different contexts. For example, in one context it can be referring to a distracting ad hom attack. In another, it might be purely an person etiquette thing. This is similar to your argument with Kil over the word “delusion”, where you were having a debate over what is delusional in one context, and then when he called someone delusional in an entirely different context, you jumped on him about it. But he was using the word differently! If you want to make some blanket statement about me being rude, fine. But at least let's talk about the specific things I said. Also, what the hell does it matter if I'm a hypocrite? Everyone is hypocritical one time or another. But just because I do something inappropriate, doesn't mean that I shouldn't call other people on it when they do the same thing.
quote:
I could give a shit how rude you are, or how often you accuse anyone of being rude.
If that were true you wouldn't have been harboring resentment to the point that you were just waiting to call me a hypocrite the moment you perceived me as being “rude” to someone.
quote:
What is irritating is you doing them both.
Ah, so the problem is that I am irritating you? Well, for lack of a better way of saying this: tough shit. Seriously, why should I care about what you find irritating?
quote:
If you want to be rude, whatever. If you want to accuse people of being rude, whatever.
If you want to be rude and accuse people of |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/27/2006 00:50:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 03:03:56 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
So you are siding on the other extreme of birth? I guess what I mean to ask is, are you taking the stance that no types of abortions should be banned or regulated?
I am claiming that a woman's reproductive rights are her own. How much clearer can that be said?
quote:
I don't even know what instance of me calling you rude that you are talking about. The term “rude” can mean different things in different contexts.
Sure, but how many different things can you calling me a "jerk" mean? Please elaborate.
quote:
If you want to make some blanket statement about me being rude, fine.
How the fuck are pointing out three specific instances of you being a jackass the same as "making some blanket statement"?
quote:
But just because I do something inappropriate, doesn't mean that I shouldn't call other people on it when they do the same thing.
That is exactly what it means. You do not hold others to a standard that you yourself do not adhere to.
quote:
Everyone is hypocritical one time or another.
Stop projecting your own character flaws onto others.
quote:
Ah, so the problem is that I am irritating you? Well, for lack of a better way of saying this: tough shit. Seriously, why should I care about what you find irritating?
Yeah, you think hypocrisy is an acceptable character trait. Why should you give a shit if you irritate other people?
quote:
So now you get to make up some arbitrary rule of etiquette?
While I agree that all matters of etiquette are merely arbitrary, it is clear from you posts that you feel it is acceptable to complain to others for violating your own arbitrary rules, but not acceptable for others to complain when you violate theirs.
Your hypocrisy is further illustrated.
quote:
As I recall, I already told you that I'd stop using the term “rude” and be more specific in my criticisms so that they wouldn't be confused with mere personal preferences of etiquette. But again, that does not satisfy you, as you clearly have not read my responses carefully. Perhaps you would be satisfied if I whipped myself a few times, or perhaps walked around with sharp stones in my shoes.
Just take that chip off your shoulder and set it down. Learn that you cannot insist on something from others that you are unwilling to do yourself. In a nutshell: Stop being a (Edited to prevent Kil from yelling at me.)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 12:05:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Human life does start at conception, Halfmooner. By denying this plain biological fact...
The reason people are making the "spontaneous abortion" argument is that life starting at conception is not a plain biological fact. The first conception of my wife and I did not result in anything which could be considered remotely human. That blob of undifferentiated cells would never have developed a heartbeat or brain waves, as it was incapable of generating either a heart or a brain, yet verso would have us convicted of murder for having it aborted, because it was conceived. verso's argument that conception is a non-arbitrary dividing line between life and non-life is shown to be false because there can be - and frequently is - conception without any potential for life (my wife's OB/GYN put the figure at 65%). The conception "line" is just as arbitrary as any other.
If we agree that all lines are arbitrary then shouldn't we use the most conservative approach and use conception as the line to define human life? No tissue before conception could possibly grow into a human being. And yes 65% of conceptions may not grow into a human life, but how do we know which ones are in the 65% and which ones will make it? If we don't know then shouldn't we define life at conception? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 12:22:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Human life does start at conception, Halfmooner. By denying this plain biological fact...
The reason people are making the "spontaneous abortion" argument is that life starting at conception is not a plain biological fact. The first conception of my wife and I did not result in anything which could be considered remotely human. That blob of undifferentiated cells would never have developed a heartbeat or brain waves, as it was incapable of generating either a heart or a brain, yet verso would have us convicted of murder for having it aborted, because it was conceived. verso's argument that conception is a non-arbitrary dividing line between life and non-life is shown to be false because there can be - and frequently is - conception without any potential for life (my wife's OB/GYN put the figure at 65%). The conception "line" is just as arbitrary as any other.
If we agree that all lines are arbitrary then shouldn't we use the most conservative approach and use conception as the line to define human life? No tissue before conception could possibly grow into a human being. And yes 65% of conceptions may not grow into a human life, but how do we know which ones are in the 65% and which ones will make it? If we don't know then shouldn't we define life at conception?
I would draw the line at the time of independant EEG activity by the fetus. But exceptions made for the health of the mother. One must strike a balance between the rights of the mother and arbitrary lines defining when life starts.
*** below is a joke hopefully to lighten the mood***
Q: How many Pro-lifers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: 7, 1 to screw in the lightbulb and 6 to testify that the light was lit the second he started screwing.
***** end joke *****
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 12:54:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
I am claiming that a woman's reproductive rights are her own. How much clearer can that be said?
I asked you a pretty straightforward question: Are you taking the stance that no types of abortions should be banned or regulated? It sounds like that is what you are saying, but, no, it is not clear. At least not to me.
quote:
Sure, but how many different things can you calling me a "jerk" mean? Please elaborate.
So you are referring to page 10 of “Morals: Relative or Absolute” where I posted: quote:
Dude wrote: Don't forget that they will be "pushing" their agenda and trying to "recruit" Bill, and his children, if they live next to him.
That is the root of Bill's bigoted mindset. He fears that his new homosexual neighbor will be able to recruit him. Bill, that is your own repressed homosexuality speaking. You can't be recruited man, you are or are not homosexual (yes, ignoring the shades between for brevity's sake).
Unless I missed it, Bill never said anything of the kind. Dude, Bill has indeed used many arguments that are textbook fundamentalist Christian arguments. But he's still an individual person, so you putting words of a flat stereotype into his mouth is just plain rude and doesn't lead to productive discussion of the topic. It just wastes everyone's time and makes you look like a jerk.
This was obviously a criticism of a straw man argument you were using against Bill. Bill never said that he thought gays “recruit”. You were falsely painting him like a stereotypical gay-hating fundamentalists (which he might be, but there is no evidence for that and in fact there is evidence against that: Bill agreed that legal domestic gay partnerships were OK with him. So obviously he's not that extreme.)
Also, I didn't call you a “jerk”, I said you were making yourself look like a “jerk”. Also, in this context, it is clear that “jerk” is not a vague insult, but rather meant to refer to you being manipulative by knowingly using a straw man argument. Anyone who has read a lot of your posts knows you are more intelligent than that. In fact, you admitted to knowing using fallacies in your response to me: quote:
But Bill has set the tone for this debate. If he is allowed to fabricate, straw-man, fake statistics, red herring, non-sequitur, and all those other fallacies of logic he applies in his every post... then so am I.
So to summarize, the point – in that context – of me saying that you were coming off like a jerk was that you were intentionally using fallacious arguments.
quote:
How the fuck are pointing out three specific instances of you being a jackass the same as "making some blanket statement"?
Three? Well, we have the comment to Halfmooner, which wasn't meant to be an insult, and apparently Half didn't take it as an insult, only you did. Then we have the one I just sorted out above. The third?
quote:
That is exactly what i |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 13:00:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
To Dave W.:I just can't accept that just because the zygote dies due to a genetic defect that that means it was never alive to begin with.
Well, you're the one who defined life as that which "consumes, produces waste and grows." If a zygote never undergoes a single cell division then it has failed to meet the "growth clause." (Of course, removing that part of the definition would mean that the pilot light on my stove is "alive.")
As I said, it's the definition which is the rough part. I know life when I see it, but putting forth a fixed and non-arbitrary definition which includes all of that which is assuredly alive and rejects all of that which is assuredly not alive is a challenge which has been buggering philosophers for hundreds of years.quote:
Indeed, most fatal genetic defects occur very early in a pregnancy and the mother doesn't even know she was pregnant, but others happen much later, even in the third trimester sometimes.
Right. For the purposes of the abortion discussion, let's say there's a disease which kills every foetus prior to week 16. If there were a 100%-accurate test for this disease, would the versos of the world still consider it "murder" to abort 8-week foetuses for which the test is positive?quote:
I've been afraid to say that the zygote has the “potential” to do all the stuff that alive things do because you could come back at me with the whole sperm and egg also having that potential. But the difference is that the zygote is the complete organism. Just because it has a fatal genetic flaw and only lives for a few hours or a few days or weeks or months, doesn't mean it is not alive. One of the things that is always a biological definition of life requirement is the ability to reproduce. Humans don't have that ability until they mature to a certain age. But if a girl dies before she reaches puberty, and thus never reached her potential to reproduce, we don't say she wasn't alive.
No, and I also wouldn't claim that a man who has a vasectomy is dead once the procedure is complete. Neither are mules non-life, despite most of them being sterile from birth. So obviously extending your definition to "life is that which consumes, produces waste, grows and reproduces" is both inappropriate and rather cruel.
So, despite your trepidation, "life" includes that which has some potential to reproduce, even if it never gets far enough along to actually reproduce. And given that your hypothetical young girl, had she lived, would still require the aid of some other human being in order to reproduce (unless you're going to suggest the possibility of a virgin birth  ), I don't see much difference between grown humans and individual gametes as far as "potential" goes. Men certainly can't reproduce without help, and neither can sperm, so why would one be considered "alive" and the other not?quote:
If one reads about the human life cycle, it begins with the fertilized egg. I know you don't mean it this way, but the refusal to call a zygote “human life” seems to me more like a political choice of term, rather than biological choice of term.
I'm not refusing to call a zygote a "human lif |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 13:05:45 [Permalink]
|
In an attempt to bring this back to Roe v Wade being overturned, a liberal coworker of mine firmly believes that Roe v Wade being overturned would be a good thing. I don't agree with him, but his argument is interesting and I think it might have some merit. He says that since Roe is the only issue that truly unites the pathetic mess that is the Democratic party, if Roe was overturned, it would finally "wake up" lots of liberals who have had their heads in the sand. Mobilized and unified, it would strengthen the left, and that would lead to victories in key elections and much good legislation.
I argued: "But what about all the women who would suffer when Roe is overturned?" He rolled his eyes and scoffed because in rural and conservative areas, women already don't have adequate access to abortion. Roe v Wade being overturned doesn't mean abortion would be illegal. It means it would be up to states, and of course all the blue states are going to keep it legal, and even most if not all red states will keep it legal to some degree – but only in extreme cases. The point being, while Roe v Wade being overturned would change some things, those changes might not be all the dramatic, and the political consequences could be much greater.
My coworker also argued that this is why the Republicans will never overturn Roe v Wade; they know if would hurt them real bad politically.
Thoughts?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 13:12:51 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
It means it would be up to states, and of course all the blue states are going to keep it legal, and even most if not all red states will keep it legal to some degree – but only in extreme cases. The point being, while Roe v Wade being overturned would change some things, those changes might not be all the dramatic, and the political consequences could be much greater.
If RvW goes away and the federal legislature retains a republican majority, you will have federal legislation to ban abortion.
How is that unclear to anyone?
quote:
My coworker also argued that this is why the Republicans will never overturn Roe v Wade; they know if would hurt them real bad politically.
How, exactly, would this hurt them?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 13:45:49 [Permalink]
|
In response to Dave W. quote:
Well, you're the one who defined life as that which "consumes, produces waste and grows." If a zygote never undergoes a single cell division then it has failed to meet the "growth clause." (Of course, removing that part of the definition would mean that the pilot light on my stove is "alive.")
I didn't really offer that as a biological definition. I more meant to refer to embryos that expire after a few days. They do grow, consume and produce waste, even if only for a few days. I'm not going to deny that the biological definition of “life” is a controversial thing. However, I think my argument does apply at least after a single sell division. Would you say it doesn't? If no single cell division ever occurs, it is rather a moot point with regard to the abortion debate since no one gets an abortion while it is still a zygote, so I don't see the point of further debating where a zygote should be considered a human life. I really do think it could go either way depending on the definition, and as far as I can tell from encyclopedias and what I remember from Bio 101, there is no universal agreement on what defines life, which you have also pointed out about philosophers.
quote:
Right. For the purposes of the abortion discussion, let's say there's a disease which kills every foetus prior to week 16. If there were a 100%-accurate test for this disease, would the versos of the world still consider it "murder" to abort 8-week foetuses for which the test is positive?
Gotta be honest – I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around that hypothetical. I can't speak for verso, but to play devil's advocate: What is the point of an abortion if it is going to miscarry anyway? You can say that the test is 100% accurate and that this disease is 100% fatal, but there is always the possibility of exceptions. There are even people who are immune to the HIV virus becoming full blown AIDS. There are people who have defeated cancer without medical help. Such cases are rare to the point of seeming miraculous, but such things do sometimes happen, so why should such a fetus be aborted instead of living its natural life, however short?
quote:
So obviously extending your definition to "life is that which consumes, produces waste, grows and reproduces" is both inappropriate and rather cruel.
Again, I didn't mean it as a technical definition. The technical definitions I looked up all seemed too long to post, so I didn't bother.
quote:
Men certainly can't reproduce without help, and neither can sperm, so why would one be considered "alive" and the other not?
Oh that's slick (I mean in a good way - smart). I gotta admit, you had my brain in a knot for a while with this one. But I think there's a factor you are neglecting. I said to Dude that the sperm is alive only in the sense that a heart or lung are alive. It is not a discrete organism in of itself. A sperm doesn't get together with an egg to create more sperm and eggs. A man gets together with a woman, and use their sperm and eggs to produce more humans.
We were initially debating whether or not conception is a non-arbitrary line for defining something as “human life”. Maybe it should be clarified as |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/27/2006 13:48:17 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 13:50:39 [Permalink]
|
| "Life" is just a word. IMO the Earth is alive. The real problem here is the "World is made for man and man is made to conquer and rule it." problem. Why is a humans life so much more precious than anything else? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 13:52:59 [Permalink]
|
| Also just because the word "ignorant" misinterpreted as an insult doesnt mean it isnt accurate. Same goes for "rude", I once made a girl cry for hours for calling her comment rude in a not so insulting way. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 14:08:58 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote” quote:
If RvW goes away and the federal legislature retains a republican majority, you will have federal legislation to ban abortion.
How is that unclear to anyone?
I wasn't aware you had a crystal ball that allows you to see the answers to questions that even professional political analysts and activists debate about.
But to knock off the sarcasm, can you at least say how you arrive at this sure conclusion? The Republican party is significantly split on abortion (notice Senator Spector being a block for judicial nominees who are anti-choice), and the majority of Americans are still in favor of legal abortion.
Not to mention that one of my points was that if Roe gets overturned, Republicans might very well not be able to maintain a majority.
May I point out that there already has been federal legislation against abortion. It has just been legislation that tried not to violate Roe v Wade. Roe doesn't make abortion a free for all. It does allow for restrictions. But if you are suggesting that the federal government would enact a ban on all abortions, I think that is just ridiculous. It doesn't have close to enough public support or even unified support of the Republican party, and there is lots of opposition.
Also, Roe v Wade being overturned would most certainly hurt the Republican party because it would mobilize a lot of apathetic liberals. Also, as many politically apathetic fundamentalists that it might rouse, it would also appall huge numbers of Republicans and moderates who support legal abortion. Sure I could be wrong. It is impossible to predict such things. But the possibility is obvious.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 14:12:50 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf wrote: quote:
Why is a humans life so much more precious than anything else?
Well since that's a moral/ethical question, human life isn't more precious from an objective point of view. But even if our morality isn't absolute, human beings act on our subjective values, and most of us have regarded human life to be more precious to us than any other life. That's why when helpless babies are orphaned we don't leave them out in the cold to die, but instead use both public and private dollars to fund children's services and private orphanages. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/27/2006 14:13:44 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
