• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is it wrong to kill a human?

If woman doesn't want an embryo it's just a parasite. Like a tapeworm.

By the anti-abortion logic Ivermectin should be illegal because it robs worms of their right to life.

Yet they're gulping it down by the gallon....
 
We don't. We allow the killing of other human being to protect ourselves, our family, our clan, our city state, our nation. The idea that all human life is sacrosanct is a recent phenomena.
 
We invent philosophies and other constructs to justify why we don't do this, but at the end of the day, we consider it wrong to kill a human because our instincts tend to lead us towards building communities and not the other way around.

However, there seems to be disagreement on what a human is in edge cases like this.
 
Tlrmln said:
How would old people help businesses by risking death?
Click to expand...


If Covid 19 restrictions were not in place the economy would be better and lots more old people would have died from the virus
 
Wars of aggression are not protecting the country

The US Philippines war was not protecting the US, the US invasion of Iraq was not protecting the US.

Nazi Germany was not protecting the country

Argentina attacking the Falkland Islands was not protecting the country
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If Covid 19 restrictions were not in place the economy would be better and lots more old people would have died from the virus
Click to expand...
It could have went the other way and civilization collapsed.
The justification was always to protect the, tribe, the nation, or whatever group with a boundary that separates us from them.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Wars of aggression are not protecting the country
Click to expand...
I should have been more succinct -- protecting the country/democracy (of the US or an ally) is the usual excuse given for the US engaging in war. The point is not the legitimacy of a war but that we create reasons to suit the moment when deciding the circumstances under which it's ok to take a human life which means we don't really think it's wrong to take a human life as long as the life is taken within certain parameters.
 

Why is it wrong to kill a human?​


Given the 43,656,274 Americans who have tested positive and the 705,103 COVID related deaths, those opposed to vaccinations on the pretext that it violates their individual rights and freedoms, are often the ProLifers are first in line lecturing the rest of us!

1) shedding "crocodile tears" for the "unborn" while asserting their RIGHT to remain unvaccinated - jeopardizing the health of families, neighbors and associates, particularly children under 12

2) China, South Africa, Brazil, Britain, India - given that the current vaccines were developed in response to the original COVID-19, there have been 5 major variants over the past 20 months and its just a matter of time before a 6th appears over the horizon

3) every individual infected by the virus represents yet another opportunity for the creation of not only a new, more infectious and deadly mutation, but also the potential for one that is resistant to the existing vaccines

4) rumor has it that the 705,103 who died and children under 12 also qualify as "human life" - those ProLife advocates pressing for legislation to limit access to abortion, are often the same "motley crew" who refuse to be vaccinated

5) if all human life, including that of the unborn, is presumed "sacred," (conservative issue #1), why haven't 705,103 COVID related deaths been enough to deter the unvaccinated and anti-maskers (conservative issue #2) from sending the message that the lives of their fellow citizens, and their families are expendable

6) the 2 conservative issues are inextricably intertwined, illustrated their conflicting messaging concerning the value pf human life
 
Last edited:
Are you really asking what is special about a human life?
 
KevinKohler said:
So...laws.....governing when and who we can kill and why...establishes a society in which we can all reasonably prosper and be happy?
Click to expand...
Well...I'm saying that we have laws against such things because of societal demands, and then pointed towards that.
 
Society calls it wrong, in all cultures. So it is wrong.
 
Exquisitor said:
Yes, without the soul the moral debate takes on greater meaning.
Click to expand...

That's the main point. The anti-choice crowd goes to great lengths to fabricated reasons other than their religion that abortion is wrong, but it never survives any in-depth questioning. It ultimately comes down to "it's wrong because it's wrong."

That's what this thread is about. Is there any characteristic of a human that specifically serves as a significant reason that it's wrong to kill one, that is shared with a fetus in the womb. So far, we're coming up blank.
 
Well, it is a hazard, taking birth you never know if you're going to get aborted.

But life is hazardous and the Lord knows each and every one that might get aborted, so to me it's no worry, we get hit by hazards all the time.

So considering the kind of people taking birth it would be insane to remove the hazard, which we will sometime want to do through proper education and better counseling.
 
Fishking said:
Well...I'm saying that we have laws against such things because of societal demands, and then pointed towards that.
Click to expand...
Right.

Glad to see you out yourself as pro abortion.

Or illogical.

You pick.
 
Exquisitor said:
Yes, without the soul the moral debate takes on greater meaning.

But we do find there is soul.
Click to expand...
Citation?

If you're asserting a soul exists, then you have to back that claim with some proof. I accept peer reviewed studies.
 
craig said:
We don't. We allow the killing of other human being to protect ourselves, our family, our clan, our city state, our nation. The idea that all human life is sacrosanct is a recent phenomena.
Click to expand...
You can add friend or ally to the list. If all human life were sacrosanct, we would never have participated in world war II except to attack Japan for Pearl Harbor, in the Korean War, or in Vietnam, and that's just for starters. No one would help a person avoid attack on the street. The only crime on the books would be murder. Rape and felony robbery would probably not even be crimes.
 
KevinKohler said:
Citation?

If you're asserting a soul exists, then you have to back that claim with some proof. I accept peer reviewed studies.
Click to expand...
If we lived in the middle of the Sahara and Ii told you there were trees in the forest, would you ask for proof?
 
Exquisitor said:
If we lived in the middle of the Sahara and Ii told you there were trees in the forest, would you ask for proof?
Click to expand...
Of course and you could provide it. But anyway the soul has often been used as a reason it was ok to kill humans.
 
craig said:
Of course and you could provide it. But anyway the soul has often been used as a reason it was ok to kill humans.
Click to expand...
Ok. So, violating the machine is wrong.

The machine is expecting another unit and there isn't one.

This is the big cry.

But, the machine is expecting weeds in my garden and instead I produce a crop.

You might say, that child would have played with these children, but what if the mother moved, or the child turned out a stoner and spent all his time writing si-fi novels?
 
Yet from the dawn of time we have also killed other humans most of the time over material things. We did not want them to take our stuff or we wanted to take their.
 
Tlrmln said:
So a fundamental question we should ask ourselves and discuss is why we think it is wrong to kill a human in the first place.
Click to expand...
Does only killing by physical means, violence etc. count or preventing death also counts? I mean IF life is so sacred then not only should we not purposely terminate it but we should also do all that is possible to preserve it. Yet in the real world not only countless preventable deaths occur, but we actively terminate lives based on criterias that we decide are justifiable. War, executions, self defense, to preserve other life, etc. etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…