Political Crossfire Forums

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Scarlet Standard wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I think being alive has some sort of quality to it that will always be incomprehensible to humans. Humans obviously have a much greater awareness level, but being a life must have something more than regular matter if only at an extremely basic level.

MUST have? Why?

Everything I know of life just leads me to believe what I do.

tbullshemi · Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 2

Izzibeth wrote: tbullshemi wrote: i wonder if you wanted to have a baby, and you already heard the heart beat and you were at the baby cloths rack looking at all the cute cloths and BAM SOMEBODY STABS YOU IN THE STOMACH!!!!! YOUR OK BUT THE BABY'S DEAD....IS THAT MURDER OR IS IT ATTEMPTED MURDER :evil:

i'm pretty sure if you're going to carry a child to term.. and someone stabs you in the stomach, killing the baby.. then that person will be charged with both murder and attempted murder as they have killed your unborn and almost (possibly attempted to) killed you.

THEN A WOMAN THAT KILLS A BABY, THAT'S GROWING IN HER OR GROWING IN THE HIGH CHAIR SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER... AND ANYBODY THAT THINKS ITS OK TO KILL A BABY BECAUSE ITS GROWING INSIDE HER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE ABORTED

Scarlet Standard · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 30

AllAmericanMan wrote: Everything I know of life just leads me to believe what I do.

care to share?

tbullshemi wrote: i wonder if you wanted to have a baby, and you already heard the heart beat and you were at the baby cloths rack looking at all the cute cloths and BAM SOMEBODY STABS YOU IN THE STOMACH!!!!! YOUR OK BUT THE BABY'S DEAD....IS THAT MURDER OR IS IT ATTEMPTED MURDER

I expect in that situation the precedent that would be used would be the abortion law in whatever country it was in. If the baby was young enough to have been legally aborted, the jury/judge would probably rule that it was attempted murder.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Scarlet Standard wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Everything I know of life just leads me to believe what I do.

care to share?

It would take a long time to describe everything I know about life. Just look around you, look how unbelievable existence is. Look at the power of evolution. Look at all the species on Earth. We still find more species every day. Life is so astounding and diverse. Even in our own species, we can see that we are all individuals, all unique. Look at yourself, you were once nothing more than a single celled zygote. From that tiny microscopic biological cell, we all grew into beings capable of extraordinary things. I could go on and on about the Universe but I think all this stuff is common sense, think about it. :wink:

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

tbullshemi wrote: Izzibeth wrote: tbullshemi wrote: i wonder if you wanted to have a baby, and you already heard the heart beat and you were at the baby cloths rack looking at all the cute cloths and BAM SOMEBODY STABS YOU IN THE STOMACH!!!!! YOUR OK BUT THE BABY'S DEAD....IS THAT MURDER OR IS IT ATTEMPTED MURDER :evil:

i'm pretty sure if you're going to carry a child to term.. and someone stabs you in the stomach, killing the baby.. then that person will be charged with both murder and attempted murder as they have killed your unborn and almost (possibly attempted to) killed you.

THEN A WOMAN THAT KILLS A BABY, THAT'S GROWING IN HER OR GROWING IN THE HIGH CHAIR SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER... AND ANYBODY THAT THINKS ITS OK TO KILL A BABY BECAUSE ITS GROWING INSIDE HER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE ABORTED

alrighty...

ShirzadianM · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 140 Location: Ohio

tbullshemi wrote: Izzibeth wrote: tbullshemi wrote: i wonder if you wanted to have a baby, and you already heard the heart beat and you were at the baby cloths rack looking at all the cute cloths and BAM SOMEBODY STABS YOU IN THE STOMACH!!!!! YOUR OK BUT THE BABY'S DEAD....IS THAT MURDER OR IS IT ATTEMPTED MURDER :evil:

i'm pretty sure if you're going to carry a child to term.. and someone stabs you in the stomach, killing the baby.. then that person will be charged with both murder and attempted murder as they have killed your unborn and almost (possibly attempted to) killed you.

THEN A WOMAN THAT KILLS A BABY, THAT'S GROWING IN HER OR GROWING IN THE HIGH CHAIR SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER... AND ANYBODY THAT THINKS ITS OK TO KILL A BABY BECAUSE ITS GROWING INSIDE HER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE ABORTED

There are much more efficient ways to convey a belief than to wish the murder of one who opposes you.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8884

In response to the original post:

If the embryo is a unique individual that the mother has no control over, then does the mother have a right to remove it from her body?

Nice Geod · Joined: 30 May 2005 Posts: 85

AllAmericanMan wrote: Scarlet Standard wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Everything I know of life just leads me to believe what I do.

care to share?

It would take a long time to describe everything I know about life. Just look around you, look how unbelievable existence is. Look at the power of evolution. Look at all the species on Earth. We still find more species every day. Life is so astounding and diverse. Even in our own species, we can see that we are all individuals, all unique. Look at yourself, you were once nothing more than a single celled zygote. From that tiny microscopic biological cell, we all grew into beings capable of extraordinary things. I could go on and on about the Universe but I think all this stuff is common sense, think about it. :wink:

So? This proves what? Not that the universe is a special place - but that you see it as special. That is only natural since you are a product of it.

Quote:
If the embryo is a unique individual that the mother has no control over, then does the mother have a right to remove it from her body?

Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

ShirzadianM · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 140 Location: Ohio

Quote: Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

So if I am in a coma and I am murdered can that person me charged with murder? I mean assuming I am unconscious as I would of course be. Or I shall rephrase, is that any different in term of morality?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

ShirzadianM wrote: Quote: Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

So if I am in a coma and I am murdered can that person me charged with murder? I mean assuming I am unconscious as I would of course be. Or I shall rephrase, is that any different in term of morality?
Conciousness is the wrong word, as was gone over in previous posts in this thread. When someone is in a coma or asleep, they are somnolent, or not without the ability to be concious. This is shown by their Delta Brain Waves which never stop unless they become brain dead. Embryo's do not develop a Delta brain wave until around the 23rd week. They also don't develop the higher brain structures and spinal chord hookup until after the 25th week. Which is why they hardly ever survive before that point, and if they do always with pronounced physical and mental disabilities.

It is not immoral to kill or let expire a brain dead person, so then the point at which killing becomes immoral must have something to do with sapience, sentience, emotion, empathy and memory.

ShirzadianM · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 140 Location: Ohio

Quote: It is not immoral to kill or let expire a brain dead person...

Really? That is news to me.

Nice Geod · Joined: 30 May 2005 Posts: 85

Selfish_Meme wrote: ShirzadianM wrote: Quote: Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

So if I am in a coma and I am murdered can that person me charged with murder? I mean assuming I am unconscious as I would of course be. Or I shall rephrase, is that any different in term of morality?
Conciousness is the wrong word, as was gone over in previous posts in this thread. When someone is in a coma or asleep, they are somnolent, or not without the ability to be concious. This is shown by their Delta Brain Waves which never stop unless they become brain dead. Embryo's do not develop a Delta brain wave until around the 23rd week. They also don't develop the higher brain structures and spinal chord hookup until after the 25th week. Which is why they hardly ever survive before that point, and if they do always with pronounced physical and mental disabilities.

It is not immoral to kill or let expire a brain dead person, so then the point at which killing becomes immoral must have something to do with sapience, sentience, emotion, empathy and memory.

Yeah, sorry. I always use consciousness to mean a general "mental being", not being self-conscious.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

ShirzadianM wrote: Quote: It is not immoral to kill or let expire a brain dead person...

Really? That is news to me.

Happens all the time.

ShirzadianM · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 140 Location: Ohio

Selfish_Meme wrote: ShirzadianM wrote: Quote: It is not immoral to kill or let expire a brain dead person...

Really? That is news to me.

Happens all the time.

Well I am glad that you define your opinions as facts... I just wish I could be that socially belligerent...

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

ShirzadianM wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: ShirzadianM wrote: Quote: It is not immoral to kill or let expire a brain dead person...

Really? That is news to me.

Happens all the time.

Well I am glad that you define your opinions as facts... I just wish I could be that socially belligerent...
Sorry, I phrased myself very poorly. I meant it is legal for a doctor to declare a patient brain dead and let them expire (kill them). The morality of his decision is dependant on his diagnosis of the cesation of higher brain functions and the view of the medical fraternity of an expanded measure of death. That expanded measure of death was enacted in law in 1978.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Nice Geod wrote: Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

No. Even assuming a fetus doesn't currently have a consciousness, they are STILL morally very different.

Because a fetus is growing into a consciousness. It is in the process of building its consciousness. Unless you kill it, it will be a conscious sentient feeling person just like the rest of us. This future consciousness is what you are destroying when you kill a fetus even if it has not yet attained that level of development. That killing of the future consciousness is the grounds for the moral objection.

This is not the case with inanimate objects. Other inanimate objects are not developing into a consciousness. A doorknob will not one day become thinking and feeling if you don't destroy it. Bad comparison.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

straw man wrote: Nice Geod wrote: Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

No. Even assuming a fetus doesn't currently have a consciousness, they are STILL morally very different.

Because a fetus is growing into a consciousness. It is in the process of building its consciousness. Unless you kill it, it will be a conscious sentient feeling person just like the rest of us. This future consciousness is what you are destroying when you kill a fetus even if it has not yet attained that level of development. That killing of the future consciousness is the grounds for the moral objection.

This is not the case with inanimate objects. Other inanimate objects are not developing into a consciousness. A doorknob will not one day become thinking and feeling if you don't destroy it. Bad comparison.
The same can be said of sperm or eggs.

Harbinger · Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 670 Location: California

The issue of abortion is entirely a matter of self defense. As long as an unborn baby has the consent of it's mother to use here body, it's fine. As soon as a baby looses the consent of it's mother, it becomes an involuntary assaulter/batterer and the mother has every right to use any means necessary to abort it, regardless of it's maturity or the certainty of it's death. And, there is absolutely no secular justification for the state to interfere with this in any way.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Harbinger wrote: The issue of abortion is entirely a matter of self defense. As long as an unborn baby has the consent of it's mother to use here body, it's fine. As soon as a baby looses the consent of it's mother, it becomes an involuntary assaulter/batterer and the mother has every right to use any means necessary to abort it, regardless of it's maturity or the certainty of it's death. And, there is absolutely no secular justification for the state to interfere with this in any way.

Most pregnancies do not cause harm to the mother. The human being was created by the mother. How does that make her a victim of anything but her own actions?

Nice Geod · Joined: 30 May 2005 Posts: 85

straw man wrote: Nice Geod wrote: Because it is a being with no consciousness. Therefore, it is no different - in terms of morality - than any inanimate object.

No. Even assuming a fetus doesn't currently have a consciousness, they are STILL morally very different.

Because a fetus is growing into a consciousness. It is in the process of building its consciousness. Unless you kill it, it will be a conscious sentient feeling person just like the rest of us. This future consciousness is what you are destroying when you kill a fetus even if it has not yet attained that level of development. That killing of the future consciousness is the grounds for the moral objection.

This is not the case with inanimate objects. Other inanimate objects are not developing into a consciousness. A doorknob will not one day become thinking and feeling if you don't destroy it. Bad comparison.

You can't destroy something that does not yet exist. You can steal potential, but in order for stealing to be wrong, you have to be stealing from a "mental being". That's why it's wrong to kill a man when he's sleeping or in a coma, you are stealing from someone.