Beginning of Human Life

[DNB]

Where are you getting this? I'm citing psychological, sociological, anthropological and political facts. Compassion and altruism are tribal artifacts, very strong within the tribe, but useless -- and therefore rare -- without.

Compassion really is a thin veneer. Though we go to great lengths to instill it, a few weeks of military basic training can completely strip away the parental, social and religious conditioning that ensured "civilized" behavior.
I cited historical examples of the rape, kidnapping, torture, genocide, &c you mentioned above. These really did happen, and such vicious behavior, unfortunately, very common in intertribal/inter-national conflicts.
Do you really dispute this?

Yes, I dispute such secular and myopic views on human behaviour. Your appeal to military related disciplines and behaviour in order to substantiate your amoral ascription to mankind, failed to acknowledge the prevalent condition of post-war trauma or PSTD, that countless soldiers succumb to. Man is innately a spiritual creature, who from his inception into history has pondered about, studied, taught and demanded equality, love, compassion, justice and lawfulness. From Hammurabi to Buddha, Moses to Mohammad, Confucius to Aristotle, etc.. all men have cherished and promoted love and respect towards one another. The golden rule 'treat as others as you would yourself', implies a desire in man to be treated well himself. Therefore, any act of gratuitous aggression towards another is hypocrisy, and not a natural inclination that was curbed by a societal agreement to enforce one to get along with another. The initial appeal to civil behaviour presupposes the disposition in man for justice, as opposed to one adapting a dog-eat-dog convention within the tribes.

In re

the ad hom, my citing facts does not indicate my personal opinions. I'm a lifetime human rights, animal rights and anti-war activist. I'm vegan, and don't even wear leather.
I daresay I'm probably more repulsed by the atrocities you cited than you are -- and all without a deontological, religious rule book.
I question this. Human behavior and attitudes are enculturated, not the result of 'spiritual perception', if they were, I'd expect them to be more culturally homogenous. I'm not seeing it. Explain, please.

They are homogenous - as it's often been said that all religions are basically the same, teaching love, peace and harmony amongst one another.

I don't believe in either a god or a devil -- or unicorns, leprechauns or jinn, for that matter. My morality is personal, and personally acquired, therefore, stronger than a non-internalized morality based on a rule book. No! You have not demonstrated or justified this conclusion.

You have not made a case for this. Why is it immoral to kill a human? OK...but what's your point?

No one needs a rule-book in order to first, comprehend morality, or to behave according to mutual respect and decency, as you so naively keep stating. The Bible, for example, underscores the fact that our inherent instincts towards love and altruism are natural, and should not been compromised or disregarded due to the harshness of life. There are brazen, callous, ambitious and wicked people in this world, and they often gain positions of power and leadership, therefore our rule-books explain such predictable occurrences: why they exist, what to expect, and how to deal with it. The Book did not come first, but man's longing for righteousness and peace.

 

[cladking]

If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime - i.e. you want to behave like an adult, but act like a selfish baby when you mess-up.

I'm in general agreement with you. The rejection of morals is the most serious threat to the survival of the human race.

However, there are many people frequently acting like adults and mistakes happen. This is a simple fact and nobody has the right to enforce their beliefs on others whether those beliefs are religious in nature or secular. The only question is how do we define "others" and I maintain that a fetus with no brain is not an "other" .

 

[DNB]

I'm in general agreement with you. The rejection of morals is the most serious threat to the survival of the human race.

However, there are many people frequently acting like adults and mistakes happen. This is a simple fact and nobody has the right to enforce their beliefs on others whether those beliefs are religious in nature or secular. The only question is how do we define "others" and I maintain that a fetus with no brain is not an "other" .

if a fetus with no brain is mere matter, or simply, not a person, ...then, again, no need to abort - then, see what happens.
We all have the right to impose our beliefs on others. I will duly denounce to anyone, recreational drug usage, promiscuous or extra-marital sex, and abortion, ...
If one cares about their neighbour, they will do the same - it is the indifferent, callous and selfish who state that 'it's not my business'.

 

[Valjean]

if a fetus with no brain is mere matter, or simply, not a person, ...then, again, no need to abort - then, see what happens.
We all have the right to impose our beliefs on others. I will duly denounce to anyone, recreational drug usage, promiscuous or extra-marital sex, and abortion, ...
If one cares about their neighbour, they will do the same - it is the indifferent, callous and selfish who state that 'it's not my business'.

Huh?

 

[SkepticThinker]

if a fetus with no brain is mere matter, or simply, not a person, ...then, again, no need to abort - then, see what happens.
We all have the right to impose our beliefs on others. I will duly denounce to anyone, recreational drug usage, promiscuous or extra-marital sex, and abortion, ...
If one cares about their neighbour, they will do the same - it is the indifferent, callous and selfish who state that 'it's not my business'.

Where do you think you get this right to impose your belief onto others? Especially if they don't affect you in any way whatsoever?

 

[DNB]

Where do you think you get this right to impose your belief onto others? Especially if they don't affect you in any way whatsoever?

Duty, and compassion - do unto others...what's good for the goose, is good for the gander

 

[DNB]

Huh?

Did you respond 'huh' to any point in particular, or the entire statement?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Duty, and compassion - do unto others...what's good for the goose, is good for the gander

Not sure how that answers my question.

"Do unto others" would imply that I don't want others pushing their beliefs onto me, so I won't push my beliefs onto others.

 

[DNB]

Not sure how that answers my question.

"Do unto others" would imply that I don't want others pushing their beliefs onto me, so I won't push my beliefs onto others.

Do unto others means that if I was doing something harmful to myself, that I would appreciate someone warning me. Good for the goose means, If I don't approve of something for myself, that I cannot stand around indifferently and watch others make the same mistakes.
When one cares about others, in one manner or another, they impose their insights onto them.

 

[Nakosis]

What do you think the critereon/criteria should
be for....
- The beginning of a new human life.
- The stage at which it legally gains the right to live.

There are so many stages to consider...
- Fertilized egg
- Implanted egg
- Appearance of human features
- Feeling pain
- Brain activity
- Heartbeat
- Who knows what else.

The beginning of life. When the cell has the DNA with the intent/program to develop into a human being.

When it has the right to life. That is not a scientific question, it is a cultural one. Depends on the cultural that you were raised in or have come to accept.

In some cultures it is ok to kill the baby if born the wrong gender.

People rely on their feelings. No right or wrong, just whatever a majority can enforce on the rest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do unto others means that if I was doing something harmful to myself, that I would appreciate someone warning me. Good for the goose means, If I don't approve of something for myself, that I cannot stand around indifferently and watch others make the same mistakes.
When one cares about others, in one manner or another, they impose their insights onto them.

It also means that I don't push my views onto others, because I don't want others pushing their views onto me.

 

[DNB]

It also means that I don't push my views onto others, because I don't want others pushing their views onto me.

Tact and diplomacy are another subject matter altogether.

 

[Bird123]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

There are so many sides. Seems no one wants to consider any side but their own.

We are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. We are all eternal. Nothing on Earth can change that. We are installed in our physical bodies after birth when long term memories start to become possible. God has everything figured out so far ahead of everyone, nothing is going to bother God..

Does this mean I am for abortion? No, I am not. Today, it's easy not to ever need an abortion. There is a being responsible issue involved. There are many lessons to learn around being responsible in so many areas of life.

Does this mean people who have abortions should be put in jail and throw the key away? This too seems a bit harsh especially when one is not installed in a physical body until after birth.

Does anger, hate, and trying to control and force others accomplish anything?? It seems everything just goes round and round.

Any ideas?? I think the one where they buy free ultrasounds so the expecting mother can see the baby is a very good idea. How many babies are being saved this way? Quite a few, I bet!!

Is religion really doing all they can? Many religions have lots of money. I do not see any of them offering the expecting mother money to have the baby instead. How many babies could be saved this way??

So much is said about saving a life yet is the money churches hold more valuable than that life? Yes, choices are being made on all sides.

If we widen our views beyond we against they, the us can bring so much better results.

Our choices show God what we know and what we need to learn. These choices will return in time to teach us what our choices really mean. One should think twice then act rather than simply react to things. Ask yourself. Is this really what I want returning??

As for God, do not worry about God. God has ways far beyond what anyone could imagine. If God wants a certain physical baby to make it. There will be a way that it will happen.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can a father force her daughter to take some pills and kill bacteria as a consequence? (Say bacteria that are causing pain in her stomach) the answer is yes, I do that all the time with my 3yo daughter /// and quite frankly i dont care about her concent
I simply know what is best for her .

Can a father force her daughter to abort.....the answer is no , that would be a serious crime. Abd i would go to jail.


So ether : a fetus / embryo is not analogous to a bacteria as you seem to suggest

Or the laws that punish men for forcing woman to abort are stupid and shouldn't excist .....


My point is that why is it wrong to force a woman abort ?

If the daughter is 12 years old, then she is not a "woman". She's a child.
A child in the care of her parents. Parents putting their children up for medical procedures against their will aren't defacto put in jail.

Otherwise, prisons would be overcrowded with parents who forced circumcision on their kids.

People who are old enough to make their own decisions, like adults, have rights. Forcing / forbidding them to undergo ANY procedure, would be a violation of their rights of bodily autonomy.