5th October 2005, 7:36 PM
It's not an excuse, it's a different interpretation of the facts.
This is the question, and I would say that it's up to the society to decide... there is no natural right to existance, really (notice how animals kill and eat eachother)... we just have decided that since we are intelligent beings it's right to treat others of our kind fairly (not to mention how it makes civil society work a whole lot better -- religion helps this argument along, but I think that's the core of it... without a taboo against murder/cannibalism societies would not work.), and that includes not killing them. But the question of when something becomes human... as I said (and you suggest, though you mostly come to a different conclusion), I just don't think that that's as solidly provable one way or the other.
But when is this... that's one place to start, though. The others would be 'when can it survive outside of the womb' -- this is moving back because of advances in science -- or 'when it is born' (like the previous, it can happen earlier now -- though preemies of course are not as healthy and are more likely to die quickly), or 'never'... but you say one reason why 'never' is flawed. Here's another -- contraception. Some religious groups are against it, and it has caused no end of problems given how vital contraception is to the goals of reducing STDs and giving families choice when it comes to how many children they have... I would say that the Catholic church's efforts against this are horrible and lead to both many deaths and a lot of suffering (from both disease and too many births (in the third world) that could have been prevented)...
Well usually, it's a case of 'either both die or just the baby does', I think... when the life of the mother is threatened, which seems to be the case you were describing.
Quote:So, at what point must we consider a human being as having a right to it's own life?
This is the question, and I would say that it's up to the society to decide... there is no natural right to existance, really (notice how animals kill and eat eachother)... we just have decided that since we are intelligent beings it's right to treat others of our kind fairly (not to mention how it makes civil society work a whole lot better -- religion helps this argument along, but I think that's the core of it... without a taboo against murder/cannibalism societies would not work.), and that includes not killing them. But the question of when something becomes human... as I said (and you suggest, though you mostly come to a different conclusion), I just don't think that that's as solidly provable one way or the other.
Quote:"The life is in the brain." When the brain shows up, that's when it's wrong to kill it, regardless of personal choices considering that. Thing is, that's a hard thing to nail down.
But when is this... that's one place to start, though. The others would be 'when can it survive outside of the womb' -- this is moving back because of advances in science -- or 'when it is born' (like the previous, it can happen earlier now -- though preemies of course are not as healthy and are more likely to die quickly), or 'never'... but you say one reason why 'never' is flawed. Here's another -- contraception. Some religious groups are against it, and it has caused no end of problems given how vital contraception is to the goals of reducing STDs and giving families choice when it comes to how many children they have... I would say that the Catholic church's efforts against this are horrible and lead to both many deaths and a lot of suffering (from both disease and too many births (in the third world) that could have been prevented)...
Quote:In the mean time, I'll add this. In the case where one considers the life of the infant as valid as that of the mother, what does a doctor do when their lives are in jeopardy and one can be saved only if another's life is taken? I've said this before, but really, that's just like asking a doctor how to make that same decision when the factor linking the patient's lives isn't biological but rather based on time and resources (as in, two patients with an equal chance to survive if work is done on them NOW, but the only one capable of doing that work can only work on one, and if that decision is made, the other one will die, because divided attention will mean both of the patient's deaths). I don't think something like that has a proper answer. I think that's just reality's way of saying sometimes people die.
Well usually, it's a case of 'either both die or just the baby does', I think... when the life of the mother is threatened, which seems to be the case you were describing.