When Does Life Begin?

Cyracuz wrote: RL, your views are so black and white that it's a marvel that you survive traffic lights....

I go beyond your opinion; I'm surprised he ever kept a job and is still alive. LOL

real now wants to impose his illogical sadastic thinking into pro-abortion rights. The guy is sick in the head.

Maybe he survived abortion


(RL, that was a crude joke, and if I wasn't such a bad, immoral person I'd probably not post it... Sorry :wink: )

Come on guys, real life deserves to have his points answered (again), he doesn't deserve ad hominem ad nauseum au gratin.

EorI, Come on! real "real"ly asks for adhominems by his over-stretching of prochoice supporters to suggest we kill babies. If that isn't sick in the head, I don't know what is.

I don't know Eorl. You're probably right, even though RL has a habit of ignoring my points, even when they're directed right at him...

Well I guess I should feel flattered, he at least told me he wouldn't answer any more of my posts.

Heh... Advanced problem solving, that....

Ignore it until it goes away. And if it doesn't, ignore it anyway.

Diest said: "Thanks to our friend here in A2K, Eorl, we have an example: Their is a fire, and in the fire a child dies. Additionally, the fire destroyed 100 embryos. Being realistic, you know that the emotional and moral consequence of the deaths varies.

But why?"

You are right that I would probably feel more emotional turmoil over the death of the little girl, but does that prove that she is more value? Maybe the reason why is just that we have direct experience of interaction with little girls, observing their wonderful innocence and childishness. They're cute and we can relate with them. We remember being five. Just because we don't have as much of an emotional response to the death of an embryo doesn't prove that it is of any less value.

And my point before was that not punishing murder, manslaughter, or criminal negligence toward anyone other than a fetus would cause huge problems. With a fetus, it doesn't. I was showing the double standard.

Run,

I don't agree, but thankyou for at least answering the question. It seems you do value the child more highly, even if, in principle, you wish you didn't.

How about another scenario to up the odds a bit.

Imagine that 50 people you don't know personally are in mortal danger. If you do nothing they will die. You have a chance to save them, but to do that you must die yourself.
What do you do?

Maybe this sounds cruel, but my own life means more to me than those of 50 strangers. I'd walk away.

Cyracuz, That's really, really, a great question. I love it!

Glad you like it. But I'm curious. How would you act in such a scenario?

I'm pretty sure I'd save the 50. I can't know for sure until I'm there.

Even though it was 100% guaranteed, for certain sure that you would die in so doing?

Yeah, I'd like to think so.

Ok. Would you napalm a bus full of kids if you knew that there was a lethal virus with no cure inside the bus that would kill them within a month, and that would infect thousands if it got out?

Maybe.
I'd certainly try to bring more people in with me to share the burden of such a decision, and I doubt napalm would be my first choice.
But without trying to water it down...I just don't know what I'd do in that situation....the likelyhood of outbreak would have to be very high for me to consider it.

But getting back to the original question, (1 v 50), probably worth a P & D topic on it's own?

Yea.. That might be fun. I'll start a thread. Started another one in S&R. More virus, more fire