Wait a moment... so abortion really does = murder....

[dennisrwood]

but as i don't believe that we are the creators...

[Avatar]

Exactly.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Hahaha....err..sorry about that Avatar bashing session there on that last statement, I guess it was taken out of context, didn't mean to start the avalanche. ehehehe...

I'm with you on freedoms though, Avatar, as much as possible. People who don't have the chance to make mistakes don't have the chance to grow.

[Avatar]

Don't worry about it. I assure you that it doesn't bother me.

And as you suggest, perhaps people need to be able to make mistakes. Certainly nothing is learned if the government is always choosing on your behalf.

--Avatar

[Skyweir]

So if the question of our value of life rests on far more than simply whether or not abortion is legal, then making it illegal is not going to suddenly engender real respect for life. As long as all the other things carry on, we are still not respecting life as you would have it.

This is an inviable stance. The question is not what would maximise the human value of life but whether the application of abortion would devalue human life. Some one mentioned earlier that the killing of a soldier doesnt devalue human life .. but all killing does devalue human life. Every individual lost and our acceptance of that fact - results in our lessened value for life.

Through out history soldiers, rank and file .. have been used as expendable agents - an acceptable sacrifice for a greater good.

When we churn out meat for the grinder with little thought for the worth of that resource .. we end up having a lessened value of human worth.

And surely part of our respect for life is in the respect for the way that people choose to live their lives. Respecting the choices of the living is a step toward respecting their lives.

yes there is no doubt that part of our respect for human worth hinges our respect for freedom. But what is freedom? Now thats an interesting topic.

Is freedom just another word for nothing left to lose?

Nothing on earth is designed to protect life, except by our culture. [/qupte

not entirely sure what is meant by this statment. I would have to say that we as humans possess a biological imperative to preserve and protect life .. particularly our own and those of our kinspeople.

In fact, protection of the weak can be considered counter-survival. Nature never intended the weak to live. We allow it, and thereby may be sowing the seeds of our eventual destruction.

ooh that smacks of darwinian theory and neo-nazi propaganda LOL I am sure you dont intend it to sound that way

Protection of the weak is a luxury that we gain only through having been strong enough to reach this point. There may be no life without conception, but that does not mean that every conception must become a life.

--Avatar

Protection of the weak is not a luxury .. it is an obligation .. we as humans always protect our vulnerable offspring .. we are biologically driven to protect our young. They are arguably the weakest of the weak.

The weak need protecting .. and thus we protect .. this is our humanity .. that leads our actions to preserve life .. other than our own.

To deny our humantiy .. is to deny who and what we really are imo

be back .. this is tre' interesting!!

[Avatar]

In fact, protection of the weak can be considered counter-survival. Nature never intended the weak to live. We allow it, and thereby may be sowing the seeds of our eventual destruction.

ooh that smacks of darwinian theory and neo-nazi propaganda LOL I am sure you dont intend it to sound that way

I certainly am not advocating Neo-Nazism, but what is the problem with Darwin?

It's very clear that nature does not "permit" the survival of anything that is not strong. In the wild, the weak, the deformed or the anomaly do not survive. And if they do survive, they rarely, if ever, pass on their genes.

It's a simple mechanism designed perhaps in part to protect resources, but more surely to protect the genetic viability of any species. Contra-survival tendencies are not passed on, for the simple reason that either the tendency means that the "actor" does not survive, or that nothing is willing to breed with such an anomaly.

Questions of humanity, of right and wrong, do not enter into the considerations of nature. Only the question of survival. And not survival of the individual either.

Protection of the weak is a luxury that we gain only through having been strong enough to reach this point. There may be no life without conception, but that does not mean that every conception must become a life.

Protection of the weak is not a luxury .. it is an obligation .. we as humans always protect our vulnerable offspring .. we are biologically driven to protect our young. They are arguably the weakest of the weak.

The weak need protecting .. and thus we protect .. this is our humanity .. that leads our actions to preserve life .. other than our own.

While I don't disagree with you that perhaps the essence of humanity is exhibited when we protect the lives of others, and that the protection of our offspring is a biological imperative, but I must disagree when you say that protecting the weak isn't a luxury.

And please realise that I'm not talking about children here. Children, living children, must be protected because they in turn become protectors and procreators.

I'm talking about the characteristics/behaviours which people today may have, which, while not preventing them from being alive, disincline them from, or make them inable to, contribute in any way to society.

Characteristics/whatever, that, had they behaved that way a few thousand, even a few hundred, years ago, would have meant that they either never lived very long, (not long enough to breed anyway), or never had any children.

It is only the fact that our predecessors were "strong" that makes us able to protect the weak now. I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily. Only that it may weaken us in the long run.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

so we turn to Eugenics to weed out the weaker folk?
and that is my problem with abortion. that might does not always make right.

ps: Avatar, grain of salt please.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Sure, maybe nature generally dictates that protection of the weak is anti-productive... but... listen, we're the human freakin race here. We have so much power over the planet earth that it's silly. We, as an animal, basically write our own rules these days. We can protect the weak all we want. Hell, we're making the weak stronger! Medicine is increasing in effectiveness at such a rate that I believe eventually we really will cure all diseases, unless the human physiology prevents this somehow.

[Skyweir]

uggh i just prepared a lengthy reply here that took me more than an hour!!@ .. and I got logged out and now its all gone! I will try again .. uggh that soo sucks!! I will never be able to recall it all.

I certainly am not advocating Neo-Nazism, but what is the problem with Darwin?

Dawinism was the inspiration and sadly, the justification used in Nazi Germany's reprehensibly ambitous genocide and euthanasia campaigns. The problem is not with Darwin but in the similar rationale drawn in Nazi philosophy - its the paralleling conceptual comparison that I find concerning.

Questions of humanity, of right and wrong, do not enter into the considerations of nature. Only the question of survival. And not survival of the individual either.

But they do enter into hunman considerations avatar.

Of all species, humans possess the potential and ability to "consider". It is our ability to deliberate consequences of actions, to determine soundness and seek ethical outcomes that defines us in terms of our humanity.

While I don't disagree with you that perhaps the essence of humanity is exhibited when we protect the lives of others, and that the protection of our offspring is a biological imperative, but I must disagree when you say that protecting the weak isn't a luxury.

I am unsure, but I think this may really hinge on an arguement of semantics and if so I think we can overcome this with clarification.

But from all definitions of luxury I am not sure I understand the point being made by this statement.

Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.
Something expensive or hard to obtain.
Sumptuous living or surroundings: lives in luxury.

and Oxford:

self-indulgent, comfortable and expensive

I am not sure I understand the context in which you make this staement .. that "helping the weak is a luxury". How do you see this action as falling under the definition of "luxury"?

And please realise that I'm not talking about children here. Children, living children, must be protected because they in turn become protectors and procreators.

Following this rationale, then, assisting any subject that is weak is acceptable and thus a necessity, if and only if, they in turn become protectors and procreators.

It would be useful to know what defines a subject as "weak", however moving along ..

And assuming that you refer to physical, genetic, mental weaknesses, a great number of subjects that fall within this definition may indeed with assistance at an early stage become protectors and procreators themselves.

I'm talking about the characteristics/behaviours which people today may have, which, while not preventing them from being alive, disincline them from, or make them inable to, contribute in any way to society.

So how then do we account for the Steven Hawkins of this world? Whose contibution to society is marked?

How do we rationalise the contributions made to society by one who was crippled by polio and spent almost his entire presidency (Franklin D Rooservelt) in a wheelchair?

How about Helen Keller??? The assistance she received enabled her to be a phenomenal contributor to society, and a key actor in bringing marginalised members of lcoal communities into mainstream society!

I think to assume because someone suffers a disability or weakness that they are incable of making a valuable contribution to society is to indulge in a gross injustice.

It is only the fact that our predecessors were "strong" that makes us able to protect the weak now. I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily. Only that it may weaken us in the long run.

--Avatar

I can not accept this rationale. Social diversity does not weaken society it in fact creates the opposite outcome .. it strengthens it.

Compassion is a uniquely human quality - it is a sign of social strength not an indicator of social weakness. Not even in the long run. This is the very reality that Nazi Germany failed to appreciate.

Protecting and caring for our weaker less able members of society is a sign of the presence of a vital social conscience.

Social conscience - er go - social responsibilty.

[Avatar]

Sorry, bit short of time here, so I'll do my best to be brief.

By luxury, I literally mean that it is something that humanity as a biological species can do without. Our survival as a species does not require that we protect, nurture or uplift those who are unable to contribute to the society which they inhabit.

This does not mean that we shouldn't, only that our survival does not depend on it. It may enrich us, it may enhance our spirits, but it does not enhance our survival.

And I don't feel we can justify an argument of "What might have been." If it never was, we would never know that it couldn't have been. And if you don't have something, and never concieved of it's existence, you can't miss it.

That social conscience is vital to our conception of humanity. Not to our survival as a species.

As a human, as somebody who wants us all to be the best species that we can, I fully support the idea of helping and caring for these people.

However, in terms of simple biology, it is something we could live without doing.

That's what I meant by it being a luxury. We have advanced to the point where we can do it. And that's good. But we don't have to.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

gotcha.

[Skyweir]

Sorry, bit short of time here, so I'll do my best to be brief.

By luxury, I literally mean that it is something that humanity as a biological species can do without. Our survival as a species does not require that we protect, nurture or uplift those who are unable to contribute to the society which they inhabit.

This does not mean that we shouldn't, only that our survival does not depend on it. It may enrich us, it may enhance our spirits, but it does not enhance our survival.

And I don't feel we can justify an argument of "What might have been." If it never was, we would never know that it couldn't have been. And if you don't have something, and never concieved of it's existence, you can't miss it.

That social conscience is vital to our conception of humanity. Not to our survival as a species.

As a human, as somebody who wants us all to be the best species that we can, I fully support the idea of helping and caring for these people.

However, in terms of simple biology, it is something we could live without doing.

That's what I meant by it being a luxury. We have advanced to the point where we can do it. And that's good. But we don't have to.

--Avatar

thats interesting and curious ..

thanks for defining your meaning regarding your use of the word "luxury"

I do however have to disagree. I dont see "luxury" coming into something as basic as aiding weaker elements of society. And despite the fact that children have been conveniently eliminated from your arguement .. the mere fact that as a species we do care for our young .. and as biological imperative does make us prone to aiding the weak in our society.

We are aferall talking "society" .. We aid the weak in our society to strengthen our society. Historical perspectives involve a lot more variables than just basic survivalist instinct.

We are more than animals .. and rarely do we have to make conscious considerations of our own personal survival in order to justify aiding those weaker than ourselves.

The elderly are an example of how as humans we have traditionally cared for the elderly among us but are now moving away from those more traditional roles of caring for our elderly and institutionalising them.

So once when we as groups, assumed responsibility for our elderly and viewed them, despite there incumbent weakness .. as valued for their experience and contribution .. we now (western socities moreso) do not have the same regard as once we did.

It was not a "luxury" in the past to aid this weak cross-section of society .. and the fact that we are now as you argue strong enough and able enough to aid we in fact do not as readily.

Its about valuing human life .. whether weak or in perfect physical or mental condition ..

It really .. imo .. does come down to this .. If we claim to value human life .. then we must be responsible for that claim .. and value all.

Diversity only strengthens ..

[dennisrwood]

it started with abortion, then moved to euthenasia.
and breakthroughs in genetics will give rise to a new type of eugenics. and then what? elimination of undesirables? homeless, criminals, etc. where does it end, and how can we claim to value life?

[Avatar]

Do we as a species value life at all?

Certainly some of us do, and certainly some governments claim to, but it often seems we value human life only in terms of what it can gain for us.

Valuing life in general, and as a whole, is not "natural". It has only arisen as we "evolved" as a species.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

if you believe that we evolved.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Even if we didn't physically evolve, we've definately evolved morally.

Come on, rape and pillage used to be the salary for soldiers.

[Skyweir]

Do we as a species value life at all?

Certainly some of us do, and certainly some governments claim to, but it often seems we value human life only in terms of what it can gain for us.

Valuing life in general, and as a whole, is not "natural". It has only arisen as we "evolved" as a species.

--Avatar

the mere fact that as humans we possess biological imperatives to protect our young dispells that myth.

valuing life is natural additionally the fact that we risk our lives in defense of our mates, our offspring .. those we love .. asserts this fact.

When we are willing to risk self-survival in the pursuit of protecting others .. this denotes it is not unnatural for us to value life.

The disintegration of society begins when we do not value life .. value for life strengthens society.

[dennisrwood]

jem: but look how quickly we return to that rape and pillage mentality.

[Avatar]

the mere fact that as humans we possess biological imperatives to protect our young dispells that myth.

I'm afraid that I can't agree with you there. The biological imperative impels us to protect our own young. The continuation of our own genetic material.

In fact, our defense of our young could be inherently selfish, in the sense that it is essentially ourselves that we protect. Our young are our only legacy to the future. They are our hope that we continue in some way, whether in their memories and stories, (short-lived though they may be), or in their genes, a legacy as potentially long-lived as the human race.

Do we hear stories of wild animals defending the young of some other species? Even perhaps the offspring of others of the same species? In fact, when a new dominant male takes over a pride of lions, his first job is killing off the offspring of the previous dominant male.

Only our "moral/ethical" evolution has made us into beings who will die to save somebody else.

There is nothing "natural" or "pro-survival" about it. Not to mention the fact that historically speaking, life was cheap indeed. And even today, in many of the places and cultures of humanity, life has a significantly lower value than we in the west like to ascribe to it.

I don't think that this is a good thing. I think that our improvement as a society, as a species, does require that we hold the value of life more highly. But this is solely down to a human derived and created notion. Nature per se has no "respect" for life. Only for survival.

--Avatar

[Rivenrock]

..