Why is it wrong to kill a human?

[uptower]

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....

 

[craig]

In our abortion discussions, we're often told that abortion is wrong because it kills of a human. We often argue over whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is really a human, at least in any meaningful sense, but we never really get down to why that matters.

There's no question that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not the same thing as a newborn infant for at least a considerable portion of a pregnancy. It has some things in common with one, but lacks many others.

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. What's so special about the humans who we all agree that it's wrong to kill and, whatever that is, why does it supposedly apply to a zygote, embryo, or fetus?

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.

 

[Slartibartfast]

In our abortion discussions, we're often told that abortion is wrong because it kills of a human. We often argue over whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is really a human, at least in any meaningful sense, but we never really get down to why that matters.

There's no question that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not the same thing as a newborn infant for at least a considerable portion of a pregnancy. It has some things in common with one, but lacks many others.

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. What's so special about the humans who we all agree that it's wrong to kill and, whatever that is, why does it supposedly apply to a zygote, embryo, or fetus?

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.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

How would old people help businesses by risking death?

If Covid 19 restrictions were not in place the economy would be better and lots more old people would have died from the virus

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Lemme take a guess -- killing people during war is protecting the country so that it makes ok; killing people who commit certain types of crimes is ok because we don't like those people; killing zefs is ok because women think they should have agency over their bodies. There are laws that allow those killings.

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

 

[craig]

If Covid 19 restrictions were not in place the economy would be better and lots more old people would have died from the virus

It could have went the other way and civilization collapsed.

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

The justification was always to protect the, tribe, the nation, or whatever group with a boundary that separates us from them.

 

[Argent]

Wars of aggression are not protecting the country

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.

 

[jgarden47]

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

 

[Integrityrespec]

In our abortion discussions, we're often told that abortion is wrong because it kills of a human. We often argue over whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is really a human, at least in any meaningful sense, but we never really get down to why that matters.

There's no question that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not the same thing as a newborn infant for at least a considerable portion of a pregnancy. It has some things in common with one, but lacks many others.

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. What's so special about the humans who we all agree that it's wrong to kill and, whatever that is, why does it supposedly apply to a zygote, embryo, or fetus?

Are you really asking what is special about a human life?

 

[Fishking]

So...laws.....governing when and who we can kill and why...establishes a society in which we can all reasonably prosper and be happy?

Well...I'm saying that we have laws against such things because of societal demands, and then pointed towards that.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Are you really asking what is special about a human life?

Yes. That's what I said. Too hard for you to answer?

 

[Exquisitor]

Assuming one believes in souls...

Yes, without the soul the moral debate takes on greater meaning.

But we do find there is soul.

 

[tshade]

In our abortion discussions, we're often told that abortion is wrong because it kills of a human. We often argue over whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is really a human, at least in any meaningful sense, but we never really get down to why that matters.

There's no question that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not the same thing as a newborn infant for at least a considerable portion of a pregnancy. It has some things in common with one, but lacks many others.

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. What's so special about the humans who we all agree that it's wrong to kill and, whatever that is, why does it supposedly apply to a zygote, embryo, or fetus?

Society calls it wrong, in all cultures. So it is wrong.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes, without the soul the moral debate takes on greater meaning.

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.

 

[Exquisitor]

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.

 

[KevinKohler]

Well...I'm saying that we have laws against such things because of societal demands, and then pointed towards that.

Right.

Glad to see you out yourself as pro abortion.

Or illogical.

You pick.

 

[KevinKohler]

Yes, without the soul the moral debate takes on greater meaning.

But we do find there is soul.

Citation?

If you're asserting a soul exists, then you have to back that claim with some proof. I accept peer reviewed studies.

 

[Fishking]

Right.

Glad to see you out yourself as pro abortion.

Or illogical.

You pick.

Talk about illogic.

 

[choiceone]

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.

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.

 

[Exquisitor]

Citation?

If you're asserting a soul exists, then you have to back that claim with some proof. I accept peer reviewed studies.

If we lived in the middle of the Sahara and Ii told you there were trees in the forest, would you ask for proof?

 

[KevinKohler]

If we lived in the middle of the Sahara and Ii told you there were trees in the forest, would you ask for proof?

Yep.

 

[craig]

If we lived in the middle of the Sahara and Ii told you there were trees in the forest, would you ask for proof?

Of course and you could provide it. But anyway the soul has often been used as a reason it was ok to kill humans.

 

[Exquisitor]

Of course and you could provide it. But anyway the soul has often been used as a reason it was ok to kill humans.

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?

 

[prometeus]

In the evolution of mankind, the reason we survived as a species is because of our cooperation with each other. We were interdependent. Our families, and by extension our tribes, would not have survived, were it not for our cooperation with our own species. We hunted, gathered, defended and cared for one another because our own lives depended on it. Our interdependence on other human life makes the inviolability of human life hard wired into our DNA.

Our species, in the most fundamental way, honors human life because without it, we perish. Any proto-human species that didn't feel that way would have become extinct.

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.

 

[prometeus]

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.

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.