>> ^thepinky:
A suicidal person who has deemed her life unworthy of living. Is it our place to decide whether her life is worth protecting? What are we protecting? Life? The quality of life?

There are a couple other forces at play here. First is the religious argument; Christians consider suicide to be a mortal sin. Second is that humans generally have a very strong instinct for self-preservation, and if someone is truly willing and able to commit suicide, then something is seriously wrong. Identifying and dealing with the problem may prevent the perceived need for suicide, and in the process, you've saved a life. Third, as I mentioned earlier, death is irreversible. As such, suicide is necessarily someone's final act, and everything else should be done first.

So when we try to prevent someone from committing suicide, we're protecting their own life, protecting the robustness of our species in a small way, and may be trying to protect their mind or quality of life depending on the circumstances.

>> ^thepinky:
The death penalty is a tricky subject. Some think it is unethical because it is not a perfect system. If even one innocent life is destroyed, the death penalty is wrong. But the guilty person might have rotted in jail for the rest of her life, anyway, and that is unethical as well. We would not abolish prisons because sometimes an inmate is innocent. The death penalty has been proved to improve the quality of life for the friends and family of the victim.

I'd like to see the research which proves that killing a criminal improves the quality of life for those he has victimized, because I don't believe it. I also question your assertion that a guilty person spending their life in jail is unethical; they have committed a crime and are living at a diminished quality of life for a specific period of time as their punishment.

I absolutely agree that life does not trump every other concern. And this is why I asked this question, because I think it is very interesting the way our opinions seem to change depending on the life or the quality of the life.

For example, I think that if Terri Shiavo wished to be allowed to die, that wish should have trumped the fact that she was still alive without discussion.

I do not put the life of a fetus on the same level as an adult life. I still think it is worth preserving, but not at all costs. If the quality of life of a pregnant woman is in danger of being destroyed because of a pregnancy, the choice should be hers. Still, the decision to abort should be made very carefully. I don't really want to go into that now.

Another example for the crazy people who get mad about abortion examples:

A suicidal person who has deemed her life unworthy of living. Is it our place to decide whether her life is worth protecting? What are we protecting? Life? The quality of life?

The death penalty is a tricky subject. Some think it is unethical because it is not a perfect system. If even one innocent life is destroyed, the death penalty is wrong. But the EDIT: innocent person might have rotted in jail for the rest of her life, anyway, and that is unethical as well. We would not abolish prisons because sometimes an inmate is innocent. The death penalty has been proved to improve the quality of life for the friends and family of the victim. So what is the right thing to do? Is it about life of quality of life?

>> ^gwiz665:
Life does not trump every other concern.
If that were the case we would be killers every time we swatted a fly. A young fetus is even less thinking and complex than a housefly, so I don't see much of a difference. To consider something holy, such that it commands total respect is an error, because you must be able to question everything.
If we talk about an adult developed mind then the value of its life is greater than that of an unthinking being. This is why there must be some limit as to when an abortion - or rather the destruction of life - should be allowed. I also think that a person can forfeit their life, if they commit a heinous crime. There is no reason for such a criminal to live, because they cannot contribute to society, so they should be put down like a rabid dog.

Trying to catch up. Rottenseed, you're next. I am moving back to school tomorrow but I will try. Don't know why I started a silly discussion when I'm so busy.

>> ^NetRunner:
Divisive arguments that try to paint us as cold murderers, who don't respect the "sanctity of life" are misguided at best. I've come to suspect that such "arguments" were intentionally designed to be divisive by people with a vested interest in keeping this divide from ever being bridged. People like politicians, and priests, who can benefit from groups of people who're "fired up" about an issue.


Every once in a while somebody says something that is very obvious, but never occurred to me before. Thanks for that, NetRunner.

Reading through the thread, I have to say "me too" to what dft said and what joedirt said.

I'd add a smidge of KP, and say this is a weird conversation to start on NYE, but I notice it didn't stop the rest of the VS weirdos (myself included) from responding.

Mostly, I'm curious what you were looking for. If it was one of those "I simply can't understand why anyone disagrees with me" moments, and looking to many people who disagree to explain, I think dft and joedirt nailed the key points of the people on the other side of the abortion question. DFT covered the part that makes us so confused with the stereotypical "anti-abortion" activist, and joedirt explained why we're very pissed off about the way those same activists try to demonize the people on the other side.

The issue isn't about the "sanctity of life" or "respecting life" or "caring about life", it's about where and how laws can be used to effectively improve the quality of everyone's existence. The point of view of the pro-choice set is that things like criminalizing all abortions does more harm than good.

There's also a good many of us who question the timing of when the mix of sperm and egg make its transition to personhood. Specifically, we find ourselves feeling quite certain that it's not currently possible for someone to truly know with certainty when that transition happens -- we just don't know what that transition really even is.

Divisive arguments that try to paint us as cold murderers, who don't respect the "sanctity of life" are misguided at best. I've come to suspect that such "arguments" were intentionally designed to be divisive by people with a vested interest in keeping this divide from ever being bridged. People like politicians, and priests, who can benefit from groups of people who're "fired up" about an issue.

I tried to track down the fancy-schmancy latin name for the philosophy you described. I didn't find an exact match, but along the way I read bits of what Wikipedia has on ethics, and I think you'd find much of what's there interesting. Most of ethical philosophy boils down to trying to come up with a definition for "right" and "wrong", and what's there gives a sense of perspective on how many different ways you can approach just that basic question, without even getting mired in specifics like abortion law.

As for your question about murdering a friendless suffering person and whether it's ethical...I have to say the word "murder" screws the question up. By definition, murder is premeditated, malicious killing. That's not ethical, ever. If you mean "kill", I suspect the person getting killed probably still cares, otherwise it's euthanasia. Which is a whole other prickly moral situation.

Why you dirty son of a ...
>> ^dag:
^ Yes! Now we're talking my kind of philosophical debate. When will people realize that Macs are the pinnacle of personal computer goodness?

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
quality Liberals and atheists have no sanctity of life since it's not convenient for them. It all stems back to selfishness, like pregnancy is a burden to the mother. Imagine! On the other hand, let's not kill criminals who murder. As for the value of their lives who don't respect the sanctity...eh...


Get with it CP. It's not that it's inconvenient. It might actually be really convenient for everyone.

But the truth is, it just doesn't exist.

And happy new year Pinky.

All the people who say they value sanctity of life are just full of it. They do value it when it comes to words and things that require no effort..

But really, really if life was so precious to everyone, they would act like everyone is literally their child. They would be in the streets rioting over bombing Iraq or giving money and bombs to Israel to drop on Palestinians heads. They would be up in arms over how unsafe cars are or pharma companies that put profit over saving lives.

They just released a drug that lengthens eye lashes...

Everything comes down to YOUR convenience of life and how these lofty ideals about sanctity come into play.

Why don't the abortion protesters give a woman coming in for an abortion like $50,000 so they can be able to have a baby?? It's usually not because they are fun, but a necessity.

Define suffering or sanctity of life... Which is worse starving to death or being sold into sex slavery? You are alive... so..

*quality Liberals and atheists have no sanctity of life since it's not convenient for them. It all stems back to selfishness, like pregnancy is a burden to the mother. Imagine! On the other hand, let's not kill criminals who murder. As for the value of their lives who don't respect the sanctity...eh...

There's always a choice to be made as far as life goes. Of course being living breathing animals with an interest to propagate our own genes ingrained in our biology, we'd say that, yea, life is important and "sacred" and it must be protected. But, being that we're biased toward humankind, we end up classifying life into different levels of importance based on arbitrary or vague concepts.

An example of this can be examined with the question, "what would be easier to kill, a puppy or a bug?" Most would say a bug. Partly because it's small, it's not as "cute", it doesn't bring as much enjoyment into our lives, it's easier, etc.

Now I will pose the question, "what would be easier to kill, a puppy or a kitten?" Unless you have a strong disdain for one or the other, many would have a hard time making a decision. Does that mean that the kitten's life has more value than the bug's life? Why? It's purely subjective to "most" humans. I guarantee you the bug community would beg to differ.

This argument may seem a bit simplistic, but you make decisions every day that affect the lives of other beings for your own personal reasons. Does somebody who despises bugs not murder many through a lifetime? Does a person that's late to an appointment not drive hastily and risk the lives of beings around them?

So if we have no universal way to determine the value of life between one being and the next or even between our own kind depending on the circumstances, some extreme (war), some mundane (driving erratically), then we must assume that either:
A) All life is sacred and nothing's life should be taken away or put at risk no matter what the cost to you
B) No life matters, murder away, Dahmer.
C) Life matters only with parameters

We all know most everybody except for Dahmer and Buddha will believe that "C" is the answer. The only thing that everybody argues is what those parameters are. And those parameters are many times personal, temporal and fickle. Somebody could be against the death penalty one day, then witness a loved one being murdered and totally change their views. Nobody's views on the sacred nature of life is the same, and it's always changing on a personal level.

So the answer is "no" there's no "sanctity" of life, except in our heads. Why? Because we need the flexibility to either love our neighbor or protect our family from our neighbor.

Why do you always reference abortion when talking about the sanctity of life? As if there's no other way people are needlessly dying in this world. Around 50,000 people die from car accidents in the US every year. Does that mean that cars are going to be illegal or people are gonna stop buying/driving them?

No, because we'd rather have the comfort of automobiles than save 50,000 lives. I could list alot more examples here, none of them having anything to do with abortion. "The sanctity of life"...no such thing.

Seriously, forget your idealistic college girl ideas or christian "values" and take a good look at the real world.

http://www.videosift.com/video/George-Carlin-Sanctity-of-Life
http://www.videosift.com/video/George-Carlin-Pro-Life-is-Anti-Woman

I dont mean this to digress the discussion, but:

Sanctity:
Google search Def
Dictionary Def

These discussions can become word games, because there is so much meaning tied up in each word, and we are trying to discuss the ideas behind the words. in my case, I no longer hold with "God" as a concept (I used to. I was a Christian for 25yrs, born again, all of it). So I don't believe in sacred. so I don't believe in holiness. so I don't believe in sanctity. Now looking at:

sanctity
Noun
the quality of something considered so holy or important it must be respected totally

I dont consider it possible for something to BE holy, so i cant have its holiness be a reason for "Total respect".

Others may have similar views on here, just as others will utterly disagree, and others think im being a dick.

But i dont think I am being. Would the phrase:

"The Total Respect for Human Life"
be exactly equivalent to "the sanctity of life" for you? I'm guessing that for at least some, it wouldn't, because the religious aspect is not separable, and is deeply important for them. its sacred because the bible tells them so, and that makes it sacred, and you cant argue with that. full stop. no discussion.

But if you don't have sacred, and have "total respect" or something else equivalent, you're already at a very different starting point/idea place, from which to consider this ethically.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.

I was hoping you'd raise some issue about which I could argue, but I agree with you completely. Damnit. ha!

So what is your opinion of Sweden versus America? I always see Sweden at the top of the list when it comes to social issues, and I'm jealous. Are the lists an accurate portrayal of Swedish society?

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Let's just agree that no argument, example or viewpoint should be completely set in stone. We all make up imperfect opinions based on imperfect information, and trying to hold the mindset that as many of ones opinions as possible are open for change is imperative for a meaningful discussion of just about any kind.

The problem as I see it with people being against abortion is that I feel they're (and they in this case is the people in general) trying to create a moral highground where none exist by not looking at the implications and consequences of denying a woman the right to an abortion in a clinic. To be honest, looking at it realistically, women will still do abortions regardless of whether or not there's a law saying they can't. In that regard the practical discussion is about whether we let professionals in the field of medicine deal with it, or the women themselves with a coathanger in the forest at night. The ethical discussion is something I've got some thoughts on aswell, but that's for a separate paragraph.

There was this girl who killed herself in Ireland by putting a dirty stick into her uterus, because she'd been raped and couldn't cope with giving birth to that baby even though her family had given her their support. This is the reality of women doing abortions, and the consequence of trying to ban the practice of medical abortion by creating an argument for "a womans right to choose" versus "a fetus' right to life". I think the reality is that neither of those are valid arguments in this issue, because just like that Irish girl felt she did not have a choice when it came to her pregnancy, and risked and subsequently took her own life to stop it. It's very hard for someone who hasn't experienced it to imagine that level of desperation.

It's very easy for someone completely detached from the people, families and society affected by the presumptive abortion to try and create a moral highground against it. In my mind it also seems shortsighted and disregards the motives for the abortion, the implications of raising an unwanted child and the repercussions in society. These women don't look for an abortion as an alternative to condoms, they don't go through with it on a whim and it's not a decision that in any stretch could be conceived as being taken lightly.
A woman not being able to support her child emotionally and/or financially aswell as provide security and education is among the worst kinds of mental torture you could inflict on a person. This kind of mentality leads to poverty, intolerance, social injustice and crime which in turn leads to a huge strain on society, affecting even more people and creating a plethora of additional problems. Now, obviously I'm not saying that anti-abortionists promote crime and injustice, but what I am saying is this: The sanctity of life simply does not end at conception.

Finally, my take on the religious argument about the moment of conception and the soul. I look at it like this:
I don't think Jesus actually existed but is the (oh lord I don't know the correct word for it, allegory?) unreachable goal which we should all strive for. I believe the religious thinkers who roughly 2000 years ago started talking about these paragons of virtue (of which they eventually picked Jesus) wanted to push as many good stories and attributes on the icon as possible, partly because people would get a moral compass to frame, direkt and solidify their mentality/behaviour and partly because they wanted people to keep striving to become better human beings (better at humanity?), never being able to reach it and would therefore come back for more.
Just like I don't think Jesus was actually walking around 2000 years ago and curing lepers and feeding the masses with a loaf of bread, I don't believe the soul is an actual, material entity. I don't think the soul (if you believe in that sort of thing) is something you receive upon conception at all but is the representation of ones life, dreams, memories, experiences, knowledge and feelings. As such, a fetus which has no organs, no immune system, no consciousness or subconsciousness in my mind has none of the things that would make up ones soul, since it hasn't actually lived yet. This alone would naturally not warrant the termination of a pregnancy, but I think it's important to realize a fetus at that point is medically and practically not yet a human being. Actually, in Sweden it's illegal to even try and save a fetus born too prematurely (I think it's any fetus born in the 25th week of pregnancy or earlier). Because quite frankly, if the fetus would survive the incubator with the looming 99.9% mortality rate, partly due to having no immune system whatsoever, it would be so incredibly handicaped and in such pain for the rest of its short life that it would be constituted as torture of the worst possible kind.

So yeah, I do think that abortion is the result of society not taking responsibility for it's members. It's the result of injustices, intolerance, hate and a terrible inability of some persons to put themselves in the situations of others.
I think that in a perfect world, no woman would be targeted for rape, would be discriminated and hamstrung to the point where she had to rely on the good graces of others to support her and even moreso any future offspring of hers, would be isolated and judged by an archaic system of hate and intolerance, and where people would take personal responsibility for everyone's prosperity.
Today however, for the most part, it feels like we're not so much a coherent society as we are a separate group of clans having to share livingspace (on s societal level of course, on a international level we're not even sharing).
Taking responsibility is key here, and that is not achieved by picketing a doctor's home or telling women they're murderers. Taking responsibility is helping them raise the child, which you probably won't see anyone do before hell freezes over.

I'm sorry for dragging this out a bit. It's such a loaded issue that it's extremely hard to show how you feel about it without either getting labeled effectively getting words put in your mouth that are not your own, or getting completely ignored for saying something and not elaborating on it enough.

>> ^randomize:
>> ^ShakaUVM:
Even if you can claim that wars such as the 30 Years War or the Crusades were over religion (which was only part of the motivation for those wars), they still don't pale to the notably atheist communist mass murderers: Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Hitler killed millions of Jewish people. There are modern wars about religion also.


Like, I dunno, all those people killing people in the middle east because they believe in different versions of the same book? But I could be wrong about why they're killing each other.