When Life Begins. A Fact or a Definition?
Notice that if you ask "When does life begin?" you get a definition, not a fact. What does this mean for the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, one side defining life to begin at birth, the other at conception? Doesn't it mean that it's a problem without a solution?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on -
And I wasn't disagreeing with that, Unseen. I was addressing, specifically, your question about why it would be the state's business. Under some possible definitions, it's the the state's business--and under those circumstances it would be legitimately so, under others, it wouldn't be legitimate and is not.
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on -
Yes, debating when life begins is a waste of time. What I consider more valid is when life is undeniable. The courts in most civilized nations now define that as ex utero viability. If the fetus is viable outside the womb, it's right to life is legally recognized. I'm fine with that.
-
Permalink Reply by Afton Hardin on -
Cara, you just really reminded me of a discussion that my boyfriend and I had a couple of months ago. And this may seem a bit strange or twisted to some.
We have a few exotic pets that we absolutely love and take the best care of as we possibly can. We also have a former roommate that we both care about and see him as a brother.
Anyway, we got to talking one day about his opinion when it comes to the degree of importance in a life, any life. He went on to say that if he were to ever come home to either our roommate being unconscious, possibly even dead, or all of our animals starved and on the verge of dying, he would rather come home to our roommate being dead or unconscious.
His reasoning for this being that the roommate is a fully grown man who was raised throughout his childhood to know how to care for himself as an adult... Whereas, our sugar gliders, ball python, and tarantula all depend on us to survive each and every day. They depend on us to feed them, water them, play with them, keep their enclosures clean, and, when the gliders have joeys, raise them ourselves if the parents reject them.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Norling on -
"The real question is, at what point do we think the little bugger has legal rights not to be killed?"
-
Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on
-
I should have phrased it, "at what point should we consider the little bugger to have..."
What a ridiculous law. Combined with the fact that abortion is recognized as a right, anyone who kills a fetus can be prosecuted for murder... unless it's done with the permission of the mother? There is a glaring inconsistency here, and that of course is probably why they passed the law in the first place; to create the inconsistency and hopefully at some point in the future resolve it the way they wanted it resolved.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on -
Once again, I point out that it's a matter of definition, not fact. By that I mean that while facts may determine how the law is applied, first comes a definition. And those who succeed in making their definition (opinion) law typically know full well what the result will be. So, if you want the state to be able to butt into a woman's medical decisions, all you have to do is define the unborn child as, if not a citizen, as at least a person subject to the protections of the state. But whether a fetus is a person is, as I'm always pointing out, not a factual matter but a one based on which definition one wishes to promote. Both sides of the debate want you to think they have the facts on their side, but actually the same facts could result in diametrically opposite conclusions depending upon the definitions embedded in the law.
-
Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on -
***Moderator's Note***
Personal attacks are not acceptable, as established in the Think Atheists Guidelines.
Threads like this often get heated. You may feel that someone is a troll/ idiot/ asshole (etc.), and you are entitled to your opinion (and you may even be right); however, we ask that you find a civil way to express your frustration or disdain. Failing that, keep it to yourself: attack the argument and not the person making it.
I reiterate:
Personal attacks are not acceptable, as established in the Think Atheists Guidelines.We reserve the right to remove personal insults from the forums at our discretion. If you feel you have been attacked wrongfully and the moderators have not caught it, please contact one of the moderators found here and we will evaluate the case.
Thank you for reading and please enjoy the remainder of your flight.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Norling on
-
I think this has a two-part answer.
One, the legal view (my reply above) and the other is "The Trolley Dilemma"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
When is it right to take a life?
But first you have to make up your mind when it is a life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_abortion_..."The bodily rights argument"
... that the woman's right to abortion does not include the right to directly insist upon the death of the child, should the fetus happen to be viable, that is, capable of surviving outside the womb.My personal view.
The fetus becomes a human/person when it's capable to survive "on it's own".But the final word goes to the only gender that has a womb.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on
-
My personal view.
The fetus becomes a human/person when it's capable to survive "on it's own".That's not a fact. It's the definition you like. You see, this is all about competing definitions, not about facts, except that once you determine which definition you choose, you can go fact shopping.
-
Permalink Reply by Colleen on -
Out of curiosity, what exactly is the factual definition of pain and suffering?
-
Permalink Reply by Colleen on
-
Yes, that's the definition in terms of its colloquial use, but how exactly do you measure or quantify sensation, suffering, and distress?
Also, is all pain bad?...Rihanna sure doesn't seem to think so.
What's new today
Forum
The mob psychology of human sacrifice.
Started by Ed in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology. Last reply by Matt Giwer 5 minutes ago. 20 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Fantastic and Courageous Act by Arizona Law Maker!
Posted by Robert Karp on May 23, 2013 at 10:33am 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
