At 12/14/11 08:23 PM, Emarius wrote:
At 12/14/11 11:23 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:
I have heard something like this analogy in my own philosophy class; and, I would still say their life is your responsibility because you are not letting the other die, you are killing by disconnecting yourself.Then of course there is that whole other argument about killing vs letting die which makes itself relevant.
Yeah, I'm glad I already had this point of view before my course this fall. The "letting die" part would have been a mind-fuck.
Unless the connection itself is killing or will kill you, you should not disconnect yourself despite the dire situation.While I disagree, morally I see where you're coming from.
Okay, no problem. Thanks for listening!
Since you say life is prioritized over all rights, what is it that you think instills one with a right to life? What criteria must an entity meet to gain this right?
I believe the right to life is exclusively humans', based on (here we go) the concept of the spirit/soul. I believe humans are unique and superior to all forms of life in that we were created specially. So, life, to me, is the most precious thing one could possess - meaning the sacrifice of it is the greatest possible. Life is irreplaceable, and a mysterious aspect of the physical universe. And, I consider it ignorant and shallow to dispose of it so willingly for material possessions (with the overpopulation argument).
Hopefully, this debate will not become religious though. This is simply my unchanging, unfalsifiable opinion on the matter!
At 12/14/11 08:26 PM, Natick wrote:
At 12/14/11 06:14 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:
When does abortion become murder?How do you kill something that hasn't been born yet?
Birth does not classify something as alive. You could technically "kill" the being within the first moments of conception. Unless, you are asking if you can murder something that hasn't been born yet; in which case, I would say, yes - murder being defined as the unjustified or non-defensive taking of a person's life. This is why we must define personhood before calling abortion a murder. I am asking at what point you believe the child becomes a person, and is given the right to life.
I'm gonna ride the George Carlin train a bit here which Mismo did me the kind favor of linking his video on the first page and I highly recommend you check it out. At the end he questions the sanctity of life by asking, "If everything that ever lived is dead and everything that is alive is gonna die then where does the sacred part come in?"
Well, something can be sacred/valuable and perishable at the same time (such as oil, gems, money). I consider life infinitely more valuable than any amount of oil, gems, and money combined. Plus, it isn't always merely the existence of life, but the way this life lived.
In what sense? You mean enough of us to consume every last resource of this Earth to fuel our Cadillacs and 3 sets of TV's? No. The Earth is nowhere near it's responsible capacity. Plus, there is room for researching colonization of other planets (just throwing this out there).In terms of resources, I can't really say as I haven't fully studied those current conditions but there's 7 billion of us and another child is born every 8 seconds. That's about 10,800 kids born every day. I think we can more than manage losing a few that haven't been born here and there. It really shouldn't be this big of a deal.
Resource-wise, we consume an exponentially larger amount than is necessary (consider the food you leave on your plate, the time you spend watching TV and on the computer [oops], and our meaningless endeavors). The overpopulation problem is really a consumption problem. Our resources should be spent finding alternatives - such as space exploration (eventually), renewable energy sources (perhaps improving nuclear), and medical feats. Killing people to fuel our greed is disgustingly medieval and sounds a bit too much like the 20th century genocides.