When does life become sacred?

Great Debates
1

I have been thinking a bit about abortion and the various reasons why people reject or accept it and it seems to me that one of the reasons for rejecting abortion is that every life is sacred. If that is the case when does life become sacred?

It seems to me that life is sacred to the person who is living that life and not to any other person. Following this argument I would then say that if you are not self-aware then your life is not sacred to you and if you were killed you would lose nothing because you are not aware of what you lost. I could then state that killing a baby before it becomes self-aware is no worse than aborting a just fertilised egg.

While this sounds extreme I am NOT advocating being able to kill babies until they are a year or two old but I would be interested in seeing what other people think of my reasoning.

I know this is probably going to degenerate into a mud-slinging match but that is not my intention and I hope I will get some useful information out of the responses. I would also prefer to see the religious reasons why life is scared left out of the discussion as I am aware of them.

Thanks
Zerc

2

To any right thinking human being all life is sacred regardless of the age factor

3

All life is certainly not sacred. Some of it is delicious when served medium rare.

4

Dagnabbit :smack:

Y’know I meant human life doncha

5

But why is all life scared? Let’s use a hypothetical life and call it Bob. If Bob is not aware of himself then how can his life be sacred to him and if it is not sacred to Bob then why should it be sacred to you?

If we feel we have a duty to protect Bob then are we not just protecting a hunk of meat has which no interest in the outcome?

6

Yeah, but I’m still hoping to make one of those “Best One Liner” threads, so I hafta take my shots where I find em…:smiley:

Can’t say I agree with the sentiment, though. Ain’t nothing sacred about Hitler’s life, for example. I ever get access to a time machine, and he’s getting two in the head.

7

This of course makes me wonder what makes us human. I don’t think it’s really our DNA but rather our consciousness, which I think brings us round to the first question again.

8

I don’t believe in “sacred”, so never is my answer to the OP.

Human life has no intrinsic worth, just what the self & other humans are willing to give it. I rate my fellow humans quite highly, so I’d replace sacred with precious, and say “From birth”.

9

Change of heart.

I’ll go along with what MrDibble said

10

Oakminster Yep I’d do the same to AH but who can say that another equally despotic twat wouldn’t take his place

11

Zerc! Post a l’il more often, buddy!
36 posts since 2001! Charter member!

12

I’ve posted this essay by the late Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan in which he discusses this issue in the context of abortion before, but it really opened my eyes and changed my opinion and I think it’s relevant here.

Basically, they argue that since it is human life that we consider specifically sacred, we should look at when a person becomes distinctly human. Based on brain waves that are specific to humans, which are found in fetuses at about the 30th week of gestation, they argue that this is when a human being is made.

I think that is where life is sacred.

13

Since you asked about “sacred”, I have to assume you want a religious philosophical answer as opposed to a scientific or ethical one. So, of course, there’s no support for the following except my personal faith and ideas about the universe, which may or may not be the same as anyone else’s.

I think that life becomes sacred when the soul incarnates into the body. When does this happen? I’m not sure, but I believe it’s a gradual process which begins happening around the time of viability (because one is not viable long without a soul) and finishes sometime around 5 months old. When I look at a newborn, I can sometimes tell “someone’s home” and sometimes they’re not. As they age, they’re “there” more and more often, until they’re about 5 months, when, even asleep, you can tell they’re “there”.

The same thing happens at death, only t’other way 'round. During a gradual decline, the soul leaves the body more often and for longer periods of time until it just doesn’t come back and the body dies. During a sudden death, the soul may linger, confused. But, just like the body is not viable without the soul for long, the soul is not viable without the body, and it soon dissipates, separating into several components, some of which reincarnate and some don’t. (The personality is not one of the reincarnating things, in the vast majority of cases, so most of the people claiming to remember their past lives are mistaken or lying. Sometimes, there’s a mistake, just like in all natural processes.)

As it happens, viewing viability as the beginning point of ensoulment works well for me with modern technology - current viability being about 27 weeks. About the time we *can *save babies, we should. Down the line, if we can keep their little meat sacks alive long enough for their souls to show up, then I think we should, but out of ethical considerations, not religious.

14

Thanks for the link. It does help me understand the issue better although I am not convinced a six-month embryo would be self-aware which I think is when we can consider ourselves Human. Even though the embryo is showing brainwaves that are similar to an adult’s the embryo could still be be unconscious and therefore more of a potential Human.

I remember reading somewhere that due to chemicals in the womb an embryo is basically kept ‘asleep’ while it is developing and therefore cannot be concious. I don’t have a cite for this but if it is true it would muddy the waters for me some more.

15

Oh, and I should add that humans are not, in my world view, unique in having souls or being sacred. That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy a good steak. I don’t share the concept of “sin”. If The Creator (or natural selection) created me as an omnivore, I will honor that. I strive to create the minimum of suffering and fear in those I eat or otherwise utilize (which is more than a cat allows!) and I feel no guilt for occupying my niche in the ecosystem.

There is no hell save that of our own making. As such, I try not to fear death. Sometimes, I actually succeed! :smiley:

16

Here is the big stumbling block for questions like the OP. We don’t agree on the definitions. We often don’t have very precise definitions in our own minds. Sacred doesn’t necessarily imply religion, but even if it did, which religion?

I applaud your saying the above and thank you for sharing what followed. The problem with our beliefs comes in when we have to interact with others who don’t share our beliefs. The more people involved, the harder it is to get agreement on such subjective measures.

17

I would argue that an unconscious human is still distinctly human as opposed to an earlier fetus which would be a potential human.

This is one of those issues that I fear no compromise will ever be possible for.

18

Sacred was perhaps the wrong word as I didn’t mean to imply any religious connotations. Maybe the word “special” or as MrDibble said “precious” would be better. My thinking is along the lines of “When does one become Human?”

19

I can’t help but hear the old Monty Python number “Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good” in my head.

This is one matter on which we all will have to agree to disagree. Some will believe that life is sacred at conception and there is no scientific rebuttal to it. Personally, I think it is somewhere between conception and birth. I tend toward the viability standard- when the fetus can live outside the womb than it should be treated as if it already did.

20

Agreed. Which is why I will never support the enforcement of religious ideals by law, not even those I agree with. I’m not a big fan of using ethics as the basis of law, either, because it is entirely possible to come up with a logical ethical system which right thinking people can disagree with. (I think pro-life people who are pro-life from conception even in cases of rape and incest and are anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia are being logically consistent. I don’t agree with them, but I respect their system of ethics.)

Frankly, I’d like a whole lot less laws, period. I think if I was ruler of the world, nothing would be enacted as law without a 75% majority approval rating, and all laws would automatically expire in 10 years, to be subject to the same 75% requirement for reenactment. If not even 3/4 of the people agree on something, we shouldn’t be bound by it as law - social custom, sure. But not law.

Back to your regularly scheduled debate. :wink: