When does life become sacred?

Great Debates
21

That’s an entirely different question for which my answer is totally different.

One becomes Human about an hour after conception, when the full complement of DNA forms in the nucleus.

One becomes a Person when the state says so. (Generally at viability, sometimes at birth.)

One becomes a Citizen when the state says so. (Generally at birth.)

One attains the Right to Life when that right no longer infringes on another’s right to bodily autonomy. A fetus has the Right to Life at viability, when the mother is no longer a life-support system, but anyone with the money and resources can take over the job.

22

Oh, and if you’re asking what *my *religion is, I’m a Hermetic neopagan . :wink:

I can’t think of a use of the word “sacred” that doesn’t imply religion (or at least philosophy), except when it’s used metaphorically (“The Joss Whedon fan was shocked when her sacred *Buffy *DVDs were used as coasters.”).

23

I’m glad you ruled out the religious aspect of sacred. If we each based sacred on our own personal philosophy or religion, the OP is more of a poll than a debate.

Precious is a good word. Webster suggests “highly valued and important” as a non-religious definition of the idea of sacred. But these words really don’t help either. Valued on what scale? Important to who? Unless we can come up with objective measurements we’re right back to having a poll rather than a debate.

Asking “when does one become human?” may be seeking an objective measurement (a difficult task on its own). But the answer to that only answers “when does one become precious/valued/important?” if you assume that humans are precious/valued/important. Of course, our ego tells us we are. But egos (and vantage points) vary widely so we’re back to a poll again.

24

The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, and most other ancients, put the lives of newborns in the hands of the parents/ father/ clan.
The state would not condemn when deformed, sickly, or “extra” babies were left alone in the wild to die.

25

When 1 person on the Supreme Court says it is.

The reason RvW was controversial is because it literally defined life for an entire nation. 4 people said one thing and 5 people said another. Had this been codified by legislation it would have had the power and conviction of the people who put them in office and not the personal opinion of a swing vote magistrate.

26

Life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies.

27

I notice that the discussion quickly prevaricated over the meaning of “sacred,” which IMHO sidesteps the issue. To those who oppose abortion, the meaning is clear. Life (conception) is sacred because it comes from God. Thus, we mere mortals are not permitted to take it away, as we have no right to thwart the will of God. I find this argument unpersuasive for two reasons. First, life doesn’t come from God. It’s a simple biological process, not unlike the leavening of bread. Second, we can say that life comes from God only in the sense that EVERYTHING comes from God. Well, I don’t accept that either, but if one does, so do polio, famines, bad marriages and a host of other things about which we have no compunction in interfering.

In other words, “life is sacred” is a red herring. One starts with an opinion (abortion is wrong) (e.g., I wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted) and tries to bootstrap oneself into an unassailable position by asserting (without evidence) that God himself has decided that this fetus should be born.

28

BTW, Magiver, Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision. It was its unexpected reaffirmation in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) which was 5-4.

29

Life is sacred? :dubious: OK, so what about the tension between two sacred things? If we use Kant’s argument for the value of human life, then plenty of creatures on Earth are sentient enough to be sacred. (Assigning sacredness on sentience is opinion; the sentience of elephants & otters is fact.)

I think that a living thing becomes more valuable the harder it is to replace or reproduce. We have a surfeit of human beings in an age where other conscious (sacredly conscious?) beings are in danger of extinction. Thus, even if a human being could be as sacred in himself as an elephant (which is problematic, considering the relative bolstering effect of a single wild elephant on the sustainablility of its environment), that human would be far more common & replaceable (unless he’s a visionary leader with his last book yet unwritten or something else massive like that, but that’s personal significance, not the standard qualities of humans in general).

So, in a society where a human being, once born, will be fed, doctored, educated, & sustained (at whatever expense to the planet’s finite supply of water & arable land), for society demands it, the opportunity to have a socially acceptable abortion (leaving aside whatever sacredness there may or may not be in reality) may, in itself, keep those resources available to other living, “sacred” things.

(Then again, population dynamics being what they are, these days those resources will be snatched up by one’s human neighbors, who are oblivious to such considerations. This leads to the waning of political power on the part of population control advocates & conservationists in general.

Therefore, in a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis, might the environmentally aware need to have large families, against their own instinct, to keep their political influence up in the years leading to the population crash? …Maybe, but the general point still holds. Which is…)

“Sacred” is a way of labeling things without analysing real value. Really, everything, every mote of dust, is sacred; some things are just more valuable than others, & relative values change; because true value is derivable from the effect on the future reality of the physical world, both constructive & destructive.

30

Most conscious entities may not be fall into a “sacred” category in my book (that word does, I believe, have religious overtones, doesn’t it?), but being a generally “live-and-let-live” kinda guy, I recognize most people as being worthy of their right to life (even if I privately feel that quite a few are no better than oxygen thieves :wink: ), even if that person is an unborn child.

When a person crosses the line into savagery and lawlessness (rape, murder), that I feel that they have lost their right to life.

If somone permanently loses consciousness (coma, PVS), then I believe that it is up to the family, to a certain extent, to determine that person’s final outcome.

If someone is suffering a painful terminal illness, and wishes to die (euthanasia), then I also think that their wishes should be respected. If I can euthanise a dog or cat out of love and decency, then the least I can do for a loved one with a terminal illness is show them the same love and decency and help them along should they request it.

And unborn child is a person in my book. Not for any religious reasons, though that does factor partially into it. The process of life is: sex, fertilization, gestation, birth. Whether you come down on the God or Darwin side of the argument is not relevant in my opinion, because both arguments result in the same outcome on this point. Sex, Fertilization, Gestation, Birth.

The overwhelming vast majority of gestations result in a normal, healthy baby, so I can’t seemingly arbitrarily draw a line in time and say, “before this point, it’s not a person; after, it is.”

In the instances where a pregnancy has gone awry and the mother wishes to terminate, I’m for allowing it.

31

Correction noted. Point still stands.

32

On the matter of life being sacred/precious from the moment of conception, for the sake of the extreme arguement: I’m then perplexed by the real statistics on natural miscarriage. From this site:

And from the Medline site:

So, seems to me that point of conception is not a legitimate starting point in decisions about sanctity of life if so many fertilized eggs are lost in the normal human course of things. I’d have to wonder about God deciding on a “death sentence” of that magnitude, and, would be very depressing if that definition were accurate. I suppose that most women through history have known this about miscarriage, but it’s not talked about.

33

The interesting thing about natural miscarriage from a sacred life standpoint for me is - if in the future someday we come up with some treatment able to make sure there are no miscarriages, natural or otherwise, would it be perfectly moral for us to not use it?

34

Magiver, I acknowledge that your point still stands, which is why I noted that Casey was a close decision. I’ve chosen not to delve more deeply into that aspect of the topic because I feel it takes us somewhat afield from the OP. IOW, I was making a narrow technical correction, as far as the history of abortion jurisprudence. Whether it’s good or bad law I leave to another debate.

35

Since your bolded(by me) premise is not true, and has been shown to be not true, are you prepared to acknowledge that drawing the line at birth or some other arbitrary place is now a perfectly reasonable option?

36

I sort of depends upon the circumstances doesn’t it? In Iraq right now, as in all wars, there are some lives that our soldiers have taken an oath to destroy. Not directly but they did take an oath to obey the legal orders of the officers appointed over them. And those officers order that some be killed.

In WWII I personally participated in bombing raids on populated places where is was definitely known that the only inhabitants were non-combatants, including children. I didn’t worry about that and I don’t recall anyone who did. Either among those who gave the orders or those of us who followed.

Under the wrong circumstanced human life is not only not “precious”, or “special”. It is only “cheap.”

37

Yes, it was posted after I had.

38

All over the world people die because of lack of relatively simple and cheap resources to provide - clean water, decent sanitation, basic medical care. But most of us don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the sacredness of life in sub-Sahara Africa.

To me, its always a sign of the insane prosperity of America that we can afford to have discussions where were worry about whether life before birth is sacred. Or if someone in a vegetative state is entitled to life.

Even here in the prosperous U.S., homeless people freeze to death every year in cities like New York and Chicago because we don’t believe it is important to provide sufficient shelter space.

39

We confuse Human life with being a member of society

40

There is no such thing as sanctity. It is a bogus, made-up concept.