2
   

"Life begins at conception"

 
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:23 pm
That reminds me of rules at my workplace. The supervisors make rules that are very patronizing and completely uneccesary for some of us, but are necessary for others. It's not fair to pick and choose who has to follow what rules, and consequently we're all being treated like children, following rules that are useless, simply because we're told to ("Why?" "Because I said so!").

The mass solutions of management are thrust upon us all.
0 Replies
 
Davey88
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:31 pm
I like to think that true human life begins when that organism develops consciousness....whenever that is.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:37 pm
Davey, that's just as good as any criterion. Indeed, I share it. But that does not mean that we are right, or so right that we can impose our definition on others.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:38 pm
That reminds me of the rules at virtually all work places. The iron Law of Oligarchy is general if not universal.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:41 pm
I'm sure it is like every work place.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:46 pm
At what point would you draw the line, JLN?
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 06:07 am
Davey
If true human life begins when the organism develops consciousness, then I am still in the limbs of the non-being. This because my counsciousness will develop until my death.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:08 am
JLNobody wrote:
Joe, good point, but it isn't as if abortion and murder have been validly equated, and that's the point. I'm against killing people in war (at least most wars, like the Iraqui war and where I consider doing so murder); it is therefore my moral responsiblity to myself to avoid being put in a situation where I must kill an iraqui to save myself. And I know that most Americans would insist that I be jailed for that belief/action. Similarly, an anti-abortionist may argue that I be jailed (or killed) for carrying out an abortion. The problem is not whether or not it is reaonable to oppose abortion because it seen as murder; the problem is whether or not one has the right to define reality for others. Does a person have the nonproblematical right to put me in jail for conscientious objection simply because THEY define pacificism as wrong?

Yes, in the event that your pacifism oversteps the boundaries of the law, of course they do. It's not that "they" (presumably, the government) are impermissibly defining your reality; rather, they're merely enacting laws that regulate behavior. The same thing that would make aborting a fetus illegal is what makes a left turn from the right lane illegal: the rule-making authority of the government. You may, of course, disagree with those rules, but if you disagree with them based upon the argument that the government has no right to "define reality" for you, then you must also disagree with the laws that you favor, since all laws, in that sense, "define reality."
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:34 am
but is suspect Joe, you would agree it is the 'responsibility' of the individual to rage against laws that are deeply felt to be unfair, unjust, unsupportable, or simply wrong.

[the wanton waste of natural processes - the massive losses in seed distribution, insect swarming, procreational migration (birds, turtles, salmon) - render the abortion of a single female egg 'meaningless' in the passage of time. Would anyone consider culling trees for the benefit of making room for the seeds? (because they are all 'sacred'!) The needs of the animal must come before the whims of it's procreational system.]
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:34 am
but i suspect Joe, you would agree it is the 'responsibility' of the individual to rage against laws that are deeply felt to be unfair, unjust, unsupportable, or simply wrong.

[the wanton waste of natural processes - the massive losses in seed distribution, insect swarming, procreational migration (birds, turtles, salmon) - render the abortion of a single female egg 'meaningless' in the passage of time. Would anyone consider culling trees for the benefit of making room for the seeds? (because they are all 'sacred'!) The needs of the animal must come before the whims of it's reproductive system.]
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:47 am
BoGoWo wrote:
but is suspect Joe, you would agree it is the 'responsibility' of the individual to rage against laws that are deeply felt to be unfair, unjust, unsupportable, or simply wrong.

Hey, knock yourself out. Rage against unjust laws all you want. But I don't think one can criticize a bad law for "defining one's reality" without also criticizing the good laws that do the exact same thing.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:52 am
At time life begins at deception

Isn't it odd that the concern is about the life, if that is what it is, of the fertilized egg but not the human being that develops from it. The right to life people are the staunchest supporters of the war mongering monster in the white house and are four square for the killing in Iraq. I guess it's a matter of stage of human development. There is always time to kill once out of the womb.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 11:27 am
I believe that life begins at conception, and that the baby is not part of the mother, but still attached to the mother.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 11:32 am
joefromchicago wrote:
......
Hey, knock yourself out. Rage against unjust laws all you want. But I don't think one can criticize a bad law for "defining one's reality" without also criticizing the good laws that do the exact same thing.


bad laws do not define 'my reality' they define the state of the society which uses them, and it is my 'responsibility' to NOT obey them; and to obey those that 'do' define 'my reality'.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 04:05 pm
There are punishments attached to laws for those who don't like having their reality defined.

I really disagree with the 20 mph speed limit some bit of the government thrust upon me. I tried to rebel against this reality and was fined over a hundred dollars.

I am a poor man. I can no longer afford the "responsibility" to NOT obey that law.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 09:05 pm
cannistershot wrote:
I believe that life begins at conception, and that the baby is not part of the mother, but still attached to the mother.


Except taht there isn't a moment of conception, it's a process. At which point does the human life begin? That is the question, I assume, as both the egg and sperm are alive before conception.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 11:25 pm
It may be argued that every time a man ejaculates or a woman has her period that "life" is being destoyed! I must have killed countless billions of potential babies in my life!
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 11:33 pm
if it wasn't alive at conception then nothing would take place = no cell division, etc. it would just be a lifeless blob.
however, that is not the case, as the fetus does develop at an astounding rate.
it may not look like a baby for at least 6-8 weeks but it is a human being and not a tomato plant.
i suppose people try and rationalize theories if they have aborted a baby.
but, it IS alive and growing from the moment that the egg says hi to the sperm. that's when life begins......
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2005 12:27 am
englishmajor wrote:
if it wasn't alive at conception then nothing would take place = no cell division, etc. it would just be a lifeless blob.
however, that is not the case, as the fetus does develop at an astounding rate.
it may not look like a baby for at least 6-8 weeks but it is a human being and not a tomato plant.
i suppose people try and rationalize theories if they have aborted a baby.
but, it IS alive and growing from the moment that the egg says hi to the sperm. that's when life begins......


Except that there isn't a moment. Again. it's a process, I will find the refernce.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 10:37 am
JLNobody wrote:
If believers of certain religions contend that the person begins with the emergence of a its "soul" or that life begins with conception and is more valuable than the life of a born individual, then the solution to the conflict between them and their ideological opponnents is simple. They simply "should" not have abortions under any circumstances. But they have no validly established (universally acknowledged) right to control the bodies of women who either believe otherwise or hold that particular abortions are necessary evils. It is amazing how right to life advocates can cast aside the lives of medically endangered women and the lives of capital crimminals (whom they consider to have souls). The contradictions in their worldview are mind boggling, almost as boggling as their ability to rationalize them away.


Life does not begin at conception, life began billions of years ago and is an ongoing chain. When does human life begin? Is that th real question? There is no answer to that. Back in the day, people believed that the soul was enfused with the fetus at the time of the quickening. Anyway, it is a philosophical question not a scientific one.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2024 at 10:13:26