Hey man, finnaly found you on the boards. anyways,in reply I think that its a religion issue. I’m not sure where Buddism stands on it, but Christianity says that Humans were created special and with a soul (the only thing that was). now the soul is the thing that lives eternal, and is created the moment the sperm enters the egg. bam, life:soul. so the act of wiping that thing out would be seperating soul and body which = death. and whenever another causes death (or the ability to grow into a human being is murder. now animals do not have souls as written by the holy bible. In fact, christians can eat meat because God gave them that oppertunity after the first sin (I’ll show ya at school sometime if ya want) to eat them because it wassnt murder (because they werent seperating body and soul…there was no soul) so thats why eating any type of meat product is justified in christianity, and abortion (it should be) declined.
Chapter and verse, please. I agree that the Bible says that humans have a soul (or at least some parts do). I disagree that it explicitly states that animals do not. In fact, there seems to be some evidence that animals do have a soul:
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth?
(Ec. 3:20-21)
Once again, chapter and verse please. Where does the Bible state that the soul begins the second the sperm hits egg?
God did not give man the right to eat meat until after the flood, not after the first sin.
I love babies. Especially well-done in a light wine sauce.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “generally sacred”? Sacred is defined as “dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity” or “made or declared holy” (Americian Heritage Dictionary). Is the Bible “generally sacred” except for the parts that King James opted to exempt? Is Christianity “generally sacred”? This term means nothing. I’m sure that isn’t what you meant, but I was wondering if you could clarify when life is “sacred”.
Do you really believe that life is “generally sacred”, except…<insert conditions here>?
Morality…now there is a sticky word people like to banter around. My morality and yours might differ. If your choice interferes with my moral code, do I have the right to forcibly stop you from making that choice?
Just wondering.
That was just careless phrasing on my part. What I meant to say is that life IS sacred, but there may be extreme situations wherein taking a life is justified (e.g. to keep some mad gunmen from mowing down a few dozen students).
Naturally – but that doesn’t affect the topic at hand.
Remember, the question is whether “freedom of choice” is inherently sacred. It isn’t. By advocating ANY sort of morality, one is effectively saying that some choices are morally acceptable, and some aren’t.
As I said, that’s a whole 'nother topic. In brief though, I’d say that it depends on the moral issue at hand. I wouldn’t forcibly stop someone from disrespecting his parents, but I would forcibly stop someone from beating his wife and children.
Please remember that modern legal systems DEPEND on fordibly preventing people from making certain choices, such as robbing a bank or molesting a helpless woman. Should we tear down the legal system, just because it uses force to prevent immoral acts (including acts that some people condone)?
Right on, Blastfurnace. Different people have different beliefs, so beliefs can not be used as a basis for civil law. Only acts which cause harm unequivocably should be banned. The government cannot offer special protection to things that some people regard as “sacred” because there’s no justification in imposing laws based on those beliefs on people who do not shares those beliefs.
People should be restrained from killing endangered species, because the impact on the ecosystem can be significant by that point, but if a life form is not endangered then we have to start looknig at the extent to which the life form lives up to standards of itelligent life or personhood.
Roe v. Wade was decided in January of 1973. At that time, the Supreme Court was all male. The first woman, Sandra Day O’Connor, did not come along until the Reagan administration.
While the animal = fetus part of this post is inflammatory (and ridiculous, IMHO) it is this:
that I wish to take issue with.
Why doesn’t a father get a say? After all, if the woman chose to have the child, he would certainly be liable for child support. I know we don’t want to revert to men telling women what to do, but I think when a person has a financial and perhaps an emotional interest, he deserves to have his opinion mean something. Granted, there would have to be some kind of remedy if the man wants the abortion and the woman doesn’t- but why not explore this option rather than dismissing a man’s interest outright?
Jubilation…thanks for the clarification. This is a topic for another thread.
Hmmmm…this gets tricky, Sqweels. How do we evaluate these elements of intelligence and “personhood” (I’m not sure what you mean here, honestly. Do you mean judging other animals traits against ours, or do you mean ranking other animals on their nearness to us?)
And, to what effect? Does the intelligence factor inversely relate to the killing factor? (ie the “dumber” we deem another animal, the more likely we are to kill it, excepting endangered creatures.)
For the personhood element, does a dog or cat get a higher exempt status than a cow? (ie. Dogs and are “housepets” where cows are considered a food source even though they are both reasonably intelligent).
Sappphire, being as this is related directly to the OP of this thread, would you mind explaining why you find it ridiculous? I’m just curious.
I think it is reasonable for the father to have a say…two conditions apply, though:
The woman is a rape victim and
The woman’s life is endangered by bring the child to term.
However, being as the woman has to bear the entire brunt of the pregnancy alone (including the physical, social, spiritual and work related ramifications) the choice must ultimately be hers and hers alone.
And we are not even getting into the whole veal factor.
Just for the record, pro-choice DOES NOT EQUAL pro-abortion. I have no idea why you would make this assumption. This is the same thing as stating someone who is pro-death penalty is pro-murder.
Ha, ha. Very funny. Everyone KNOWS that the delicate flavor only shines through when prepared with a white garlic sauce. Freakin’ heathen.
Um…just for kicks, let’s assume that is exactly what we are comparing. Being a humanist (“an attitude that is concerned primarily with human beings and their values, capacities, and achievements”-Americian Heritage Dictionary) doesn’t preclude you from this discussion. Nothing in that definition says anything about the superiority of one animal over another. I take the stance that all animals are equally important, valuable, and individual. Do you feel differently?
Blastfurnace,
Ah, you miss my point entirely; but that is my fault. I’m a scientist not a writer.
I wrote Pro-Choice/Abortion because I meant to say Pro-Choice with respect to abortion.
As posted previously, I don’t think the term Pro-Choice or Pro-Life should automatically be associated with abortion. It is just a way to make your opposition sound Anti-Life or Anti-Choice. Those Pro-Choice/WRT Abortion are not against all that are living. I am against abortion. But that does not mean that I am against “a woman’s right to choose”. This is retoric to make anti-abortionists out to be anti-freedom. Not true. I do not agree with a woman’s right to choose abortion, or to abuse her children, or to mutilate or kill herself. But these are exceptions rather than the rule.
It strikes me as comparing apples to oranges. Maybe if the “products of conception” were being harvested and eaten by pro-lifers the OP would have a point. I don’t believe that “all animals are equally important, valuable, and individual.”
But isn’t it true that the man has to share the brunt once the child is born? Should he be shut out of the process entirely when he will be forced to be financially responsible? Why should a woman be allowed to control the destiny of the child and its father?
Isn’t that a belief in itself, though? (It’s called the minimalist ethic.)
I find that position somewhat incomplete, BTW. For example, what about peeping Toms? They’re not actually hurting anyone – certainly not in any unequivocal way. They can’t even cause emotional harm, as long as they’re not caught. Similar arguments can be made for situations such as casual invasion of privacy, or sexually groping a comatose patient.
Well, its seems that a veal calf is a “product of conception”, isn’t it? However, I think you mean we don’t go around eating cow fetuses. But, we DO go around eating chicken eggs. Surely you argee those are unborn fetal chickens?
Equally important compared to what? How are you defining value? And how is anything not individual? Everything is individual.
This is sort of the “ends justifying the means”. It’s pre-conditional. In the vast majority of cases, no-one made the man have sex with the woman. He should knowingly accept the resposibility of his choice. A woman can’t just walk away from the responsibility of pregnancy as a man can. All the burden is on her. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t have to be responsible for actions…she is fully accountable. It does mean the man has to accept the decision of the woman.
In all honesty, men basically run our planet…it’s unfair, but true, no matter how you look at it.
It is amazing to me, considering the state of affairs in the world (especially considering equality for women, or lack thereof) that a man would decry having to support their own child. If he was “man” enough to have sex with her, he better be “man” enough to work out the consquences, that’s all I’m saying.
I don’t know about you, but the chicken eggs that I buy at my grocery store are unfertilized. I think that there is a difference between forcing an abortion on a cow so that you could eat the fetus, and eating an egg that has no possibility of growing into a real live animal.
D’oh! um, your so right about the eggs. I thought they were sterilized for some reason…oh well.