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.

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

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.

Oh man, I'm hungrier than Terri Schiavo.

*notquality

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.

"The Total Respect for Human Life"
denotes a psychological attitude,
what does respect mean here? Isn't it a calculation? I mean the CIA and the Israeli military probably have "respect for human life."


It sounds like a corporate slogan
"Here at Blackwater we have total respect for human life"



@ campionidelmondo
yeah, realism ftw. If you look long enough at the so called REAL world you'll probably become as dumb as it is.


----------------------------
REALISM, n. The art of depicting nature as it is seen by toads. The charm suffusing a landscape painted by a mole, or a story written by a measuring-worm.

REALITY, n. The dream of a mad philosopher. That which would remain in the cupel if one should assay a phantom. The nucleus of a vacuum.


from The Devils Dictionary

"...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."

OK, who do we kill first? We must have some sort of standard for eliminating said persons. I propose the tombola... (I'm certain it is as objective a device as we can find to determine "social contributions." We cam call it something catchy. I suggest: whack-a-mole justice)

Bluecliff, you're an idiot and you're being purposely trolly. I have no interest in debating with a non-mind such as you.

Ooh ooh! It is SO ON now!

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.

*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...

CaptainPlanet420 cannot award a quality point for this Sift Talk post because CaptainPlanet420 does not have enough Power Points - ignoring quality request by CaptainPlanet420. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

Like many Christians, CP420 is a lot of "lip service" but when it comes down to it, his reasoning skills (and quality point awarding abilities) lack. That response to the question was so formulaic and horribly lacking in any attempt of universal understanding, it's no wonder you're the red-headed step child to the sift

*quality for philosophical quest

I guess that makes me worth more to you than he.

PS No offense to those of you who may be red-headed, it's just an expression

Awarding thepinky with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by rottenseed.

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..

<embed src="http://www.tvacres.com/images/troll.jpg" height="150" width="113"></embed>

nvm

If any of you wish to ring in the New Year by weighing in on the perpetually contentious abortion and capital punishment debates, which NEVER solves ANYTHING, then go right ahead. Start off 2009 by pissing people off, because that's always how these debates end.

OR, you can choose NOT to share your opinion on these topics at all. Instead maybe you can write a nice email to a friend, or call your mom, or take your kid(s) to a movie, or anything else that's positive. At least you won't be wasting your time on this. And let's face it: You are wasting your time if you voice your opinion here. You are not going to change anyone's mind, and every person with at least half a brain has already heard every opinion about abortion and capital punishment. There is nothing new under the sun.

I choose to have a Happy New Year, and I hope you all do the same. Peace.

did you have an abortion yet? did someone ever knock you up? or is this just something you read on the internet and felt compelled to pass on to complete strangers on new year's eve? shut up, woman. this is no time for philosophy. have some champagne, get layed or something. chill... happy new year and shit

There is no objective value to life. It is purely subjective, and up to everyone to determine for themselves. I say that conscious life is the most valuable thing in the universe, but honestly that's not saying very much. Even if you believe as I do, you must then have the discussion of when "consciousness" is present or not. When does a fetus become conscious? Are animals conscious? Which animals? Why is it ok to eat some animals, but not others?

Even among the conscious life, we all subconsciously put life on a value scale. In a burning building, do you save the five year old, or the eight-five year old first? Do you legislate safety regulations so much that people can't leave their houses? Life is dangerous, where do you draw the line of "life vs. freedom"?

Should criminal behavior be subject to the death penalty? Who is to say that a person behind bars can't still contribute to society? It is often cheaper to keep a person in prison for life rather than prosecute for the death penalty. Can we justify spending more money to kill somebody? Very strange to hear that argument from the so-called religious people. I guess some people's reality is more subjective than others.

And don't get me started on those crazy fundamentalists who support war...

Call me naive, but I don't think thepinky's motives were anything other than curiosity. In fact she posed the question and has stayed out of the discussion. So I'm gonna give her the benefit of the doubt this time and assume that she is both merely inquiring and that she's really as hot as her avatar makes her out to be.

That's some serious optimism, rottenseed.

>> ^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.

In truth, Liberals don't like abortion either, not even Noam Chomsky. Most of us are both anti-abortion AND pro-choice - having the right to choose 'no'.

An abortion is usually the result of an unwanted pregnancy, and criminalizing abortion does nothing to stop an unwanted pregnancy. Beyond that, when pressed on the consequences of criminalization, many pro-lifers are reluctant to put a woman who has had an abortion behind bars, which suggests that maybe criminalization isn't the silver bullet they'd hoped for.

The best way to stop unwanted pregnancy is knowledge, in the form of sex education and easy access to birth control. Honest, frank, reality-based sex education and free birth control options offered to school kids (*gasp*). A bitter pill to swallow, no doubt, but this is the way.

If abortion activists ever decided to take a more pragmatic approach to abortion, and team up with those rascally liberals, we could probably cut the abortion rate in half in a few years, but it would mean having to let go of some of that fear of sexuality. You don't need all that fear anyway, it's just weighing you down.

Happy New Year Pinky

(edit: snarkiness removed after reading kp's comment)

manumana ... do do dodo...

Manumana do dodo do

manumana do do dodo

.... manumana...

I thought this room was booked for the Atheists Among us Class? Oh well.

manumana do dododo

*slams door*

I think I'll weigh in on this because I like philosophical arguments. After reading all of the responses so far, I've decided to answer your original question and ignore the correlaries you've proposed; feel free to ask followups here or in my profile if you want more answers. I have also decided to present my findings in list format to fit my fickle whims.

Why is life sacred to me?

1. I'm Roman Catholic. The fifth commandment is pretty clear: Thou shalt not kill.
2. Each person has their own viewpoint and experiences, and when they are dead all that is not recorded is lost.
3. Death is irreversible. If a conflict ends in death, then those killed have no recourse left in this world.

Why isn't life sacred to me?

1. Various religious, ethnic, and national groups have throughout history sanctioned the death of other humans. Although I note above that Roman Catholicism demands that one not take other lives, during the Crusades they not only sanctioned the death of Arabs, but stated that any faithful who fall in battle during a crusade are immediately absolved and borne up to heaven. Given the varying historical context, there's no reason to believe that our current viewpoints are any more correct.
2. The universe is a vast place, and humans are tiny specks in comparison to all of creation. Even if we make a large impression on the world now, it's almost certain that it will be gone in one million years. Given that scope, any life is worth surprisingly little.
3. Death is a part of nature. Animals kill each other for various reasons, humans kill each other for various reasons, and this has always been the case.

A few quotes that I like:

"We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according to what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaining one's aim IS a dog's death and fanaticism. But there is no shame in this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he gains freedom in the Way. His whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."2

http://www.samurai-archives.com/death.html

"One who is a samurai must before all things keep constantly in mind…the fact that he has to die. If he is always mindful of this, he will be able to live in accordance with the paths of loyalty and filial duty, will avoid myriads of evils and adversities, keep himself free of disease and calamity and moreover enjoy a long life. He will also be a fine personality with many admirable qualities. For existence is impermanent as the dew of evening, and the hoarfrost of morning, and particularly uncertain is the life of the warrior…"3

Aye, let's save this for the new year, and forget our troubles with a bunch of champagne.

Happy New Year.

Libertarians love abortions. We sprinkle them on our eggs in the morning.

I happen to prefer the Macintosh.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ Yes! Now we're talking my kind of philosophical debate. When will people realize that Macs are the pinnacle of personal computer goodness?

"Would that mean that to murder a friendless, suffering person is ethical because it decreases suffering?"

That would be the logical extension of the principle, except that society's base assumption is that utility is increased overall if we have a non-negotiable policy of protection against bodily harm.

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?

"Would that mean that to murder a friendless, suffering person is ethical because it decreases suffering?"

The negative utilitarians would say yes, but they all shot themselves already.

Nobody likes abortion, Pinky.

I think the fundamental point of the argument that you, and many like you, seem to forget is that it is not up to you to force someone else to carry a pregnancy to term.

Secondly, there are literally millions of children in this world who are already not getting the care that they need and deserve.

If the "pro-life" movement honestly cared about human life, there are many other ways to express that sentiment, in very real terms, right now.

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.

>> ^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.

I only read the first few comments and it is already clear that many think that I want to talk about abortion. I really do not. There was no hidden meaning in my post. I just used abortion as an example because it is a unique situation and an interesting example for discussion about the value of human life. As in: Is it unethical to kill something that is biologically human but does not experience emotion. Or what about someone who does experience emotion but has absolutely no positive human experience? My question is more about what about life is worth preserving? Life or quality of life?

^Thylan

You are absolutely right about that. I should have used a better word because sanctity is not what I was getting at. I'm not asking about whether life is holy or not. I'm thinking along more ethical lines here.

^campionidelmondo

That was unkind and uncalled-for. I think abortion was a relevent example. Sorry I didn't give a wider variety of examples.

^KOMMIE's comment is a little bit uncouth, but it is relevent. I had many opinions about Terri Shiavo when that was all going on and I still do. In my view that case should have been less about respect for human life and more about Terri's wishes and the law.

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.

>> ^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.

don't be such a girl. i couldn't be arsed to read through your enormous string of caveats. if you've got something to say, say it. ffs.

I think the punishment of criminals should fit the crime. Murderers should be murdered and so on...

>> ^thepinky:
Don't know why I started a silly discussion when I'm so busy.


I could tell you why, but you'd call it "unkind and uncalled-for"...

DavidRaine^ Oops. I meant to say "innocent," not "guilty." That's an important distinction.

To all:

Sometimes I really enjoy discussions that we have on the Sift because people here are very opinionated and have a liberality of ideas. I honestly appreciate it. MINK and campionidelmondo: Please try not to ruin it and remain silent if you don't want to contribute. I know you have a personal problem with me and I blame myself for that, but just cool it with the insults.

Thanks to those of you who actually want to have a discussion. Cool sifters are cool.

The original question was, "Why is/isn't life sacred to you" so I'll try to stick to that. You actually had a number of different topics in your original question, but I'll do my best and take a stab at it (a rather ironic saying, considering we're talking about sanctity of human life and I want to stab at it).

First of all, why? For me personally, it's because I'm a Christian and believe all people are made in the image of God (you asked why). That makes human life pretty darn sacred to me. So even though our reasons behind it are probably very different, I would still agree with thepinky in saying that human life should be preserved at almost any cost.

However, just preserved just doesn't cut it. To live doesn't simply mean to exist. As a Christian I would say that life includes relationships with my neighbors (and I don't just mean my physical ones), a relationship with God, exploring our world and being good stewards of the Earth, promoting education, creative arts, and peace between different nations and people groups, and a whole slew of other things. In the Old Testament, death was not merely ceasing to exist, but the opposite of life. So the promotion of life is very important to me because of what I believe (again, you asked why), but it means a lot more than simply keeping someone alive in the physical sense.

In your example of the friendless suffering person I do think keeping him/her alive is the ethical choice, but you can't really stop there. Actually caring for the person means looking into why he/she is suffering and to be a friend. Going out of your way time and time again to be a friend to a depressed person can be irritating and time-consuming, but being ethical is not about the easy-route.


By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness--the desire to see others than the self-happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy.

What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, "What does it matter so long as they are contented?" We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven--a senile benevolence who, as they say, "liked to see young people enjoying themselves," and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, "a good time was had by all." Not many people, I admit would formulate a theology in precisely those terms; but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds. I do not claim to be an exception; I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines. But since it is abundantly clear that I don't, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of loves needs correction.

I might, indeed, have learned, even from the poets, that Love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness; that even the love between the sexes is, as in Dante, "a lord of terrible aspect." There is kindness in Love; but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness (in the sense given above) is separated from the other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object, and even something like contempt of it. Kindness consents very readily to the removal of its object--we have all met people whose kindness to animals is constantly leading them to kill animals lest they should suffer. Kindness, merely as as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering. As Scripture points out, it is bastards who are spoiled; the legitimate sons, who are to carry on the family tradition, are punished. It is for people who we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms; with our friends, our lovers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes. If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense. - C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain

Well, if Wall-E taught me anything, it's that there's a big difference between surviving and living, so I agree with you on that Morganth.

>> ^thepinky:
I know you have a personal problem with me and I blame myself for that, but just cool it with the insults.

What the fuck are you talking about? In order to have a personal problem with someone, I'd have to know them on a personal level. Also, I don't know what insults you are referring to. Calling you an idealistic college girl is an insult? Or was it the fact that I linked you to the Christian faith? Oh, you know what, I actually get your point on that last one. If you took it as an insult to your intelligence that I assumed you base your values on the bible then I take that back.

I just find it irritating how hung up you are on the abortion issue. Is it ethical for someone to have an abortion? There's no straight answer to that. Is it any of your damn business what other women do with their fetii? No. Unless you're the father and since you take the fact that MINK called you a girl as an insult maybe that's the kind of involvement you're looking for.

And no, the death penalty is not a "tricky subject", it's very simple. It is wrong.

"And no, the death penalty is not a "tricky subject", it's very simple. It is wrong."

I disagree. I have no moral objections to the Death Penalty for certain crimes, as long as there are no doubts about the guilt. It is not wrong, you think it is wrong.

>> ^thepinky:
My question is more about what about life is worth preserving? Life or quality of life?


Barring some sort of domino or "pinch of sand, is it a mountain" argument, Pinky, what do you think?

Would you rather live 100 years as a slave or 11 years as a princess?

thepinky, if you want a discussion you actually have to make a point.
you would be surprised how "discussy" i can be if you actually said something and backed it up.

my problem with you is that you never turn up in the mormon threads that are a little bit tricky, and you hide behind "discussion" when really you want to evangelise.

that's cool, gradually you are learning that you don't know anything. that's the first step on the path to wisdom.

>> ^gwiz665:
I disagree. I have no moral objections to the Death Penalty for certain crimes, as long as there are no doubts about the guilt. It is not wrong, you think it is wrong.


You got it all backwards mate. Just because you don't have any problems with demanding the death of a fellow human being doesn't mean it isn't morally wrong.

I have no objection to the death penalty, as long as there are no doubts about the guilt.

BUT THERE ARE ALWAYS DOUBTS ABOUT THE GUILT AND I DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO KILL THE RIGHT PEOPLE.

The death penalty argument is simple to me... would you want the death penalty carried out on yourself? No. So fucking oppose it you judgemental murderous cunt. Or "go and live in saudi arabia" or something.

campioni:
There's no objective morality, only what we decide upon. I do not want to take the life of a fellow human being, but some people are not fellow human beings - charles manson, for instance.

Mink:
Go fuck yourself. If I comitted horrible murder-rapes or something similar, I would expect to be put to death, but then I'm not a psychopath, so I won't do that. Of course I don't want it done to me for no reason, what the fuck kind of example is that, you misleading twat?

Death penalty is not just Eye for an Eye or straight up murder, it's a penalty. There are not always doubt about guilt. There are plenty of cases that are very much cut and dry, with no doubt at all. If you always doubt your government, then why do you allow them to take your taxes and accept the law that is provided? Break free, bloody revolution. And stay the fuck out of which ever country I'm in at the time.

i have a penis.

And I value it, rottenseed. I'd say you're fairly endowed.. with sanctity.

"sanctity of life" needs some deconstruction.

As already mentioned sanctity has problems in being theistic (therefor not amenable to verification), so I'm going to go with value, which exposes one of the fundamental flaws in the question at hand, since value is by it's vary nature subjective, the question needs to be phrased "value of life to you|me|john|The Pope|etc". We have no obvious need to agree, just as with anything value is not transitive, I don't need to base my valuation on yours, and vice versa, you may feel that a bucket of fried chicken is worth $10, while I, being vegan, value it at $0(or less).

The more absurd issue is "life". Before the last millennium humanity seemed to have a pretty solid grasp of what constituted life and none life, people from all over the world could agree on general categories to some extent, their mythology around this was different, but we understood that a lion is not like a rock in some meaningful way.

The problem is that the way we tended to make this distinction , as "life force" is demonstrably wrong, life is not magic, it's chemistry. The knowledge of this fact is extremely new in the course of human history, and we have certainly not integrated this fact into our general cultural context or language, and so part of the problem is that our language, our tool for making and analyzing distinctions, is fundamentally flawed in this regard, and so should be expected to be wrong.

"life" is not a thing or an attribute, it is an arbitrary categorization which we use in an attempt to save our old, cherished, incorrect notion from being discarded.The category life basically comes down to something along the lines of:

"that which we value more than a rock"

Of course this could be "life" in the standard bible-belt sense of "Christian life", or more magnanimously "human life", but neither of these get us a clearer picture. How much "living stuff" which is "human" does it take to get human life? Skin cells, a kidney, a decapitated body on life support, a brain on life support, a group of cell which have the "potential" to become a living breathing adult human? How many "humans" are in a zygote? What if it splits into twins/sextuplets?

And in the end the question is what "should" be the value, so if we put it all back together we get:

What should be the value, to all entities, of an non-clearly defined category of objects of which all the entities seem to be members?

You can tweak the clarifications on that question to make ANY conclusion follow, but their is NO BASIS on which to tweak the clarifications to begin with.

All answers are bound to be meaningless and unsatisfying, because the question is meaningless and unsatisfying.

Societies decide in subtle and organic ways what is valuable and what is unacceptable, and it's a good thing™. I much prefer our current society to euro-diaspora society 100, or even 50 years ago.

There is no sanctity of life. We'd like to say there is but there isn't really. What sanctity of life can there be when the most powerful, christian some would say, nation on the planet argues endlessly about religion, abortion and vegetable patients while raining down death in bombs and bullets on others in the name of peace and democracy, approving the waging of oppression and violence of it's allies and in those key moments when it can do something it chooses to fold it's arms ruminating on what response it should and shouldn't take in the world council while genocide is carried out; years later producing movies that poignantly show just how terrible life is in other places.

guess farhad didn't get his share of the bailout money... unless he meant Canada, then I totally agree, they shouldn't make any movies.

Here are reasons I have no stake in this argument:

• I am not a female.
• I use contraception when fucking, so noone gets pregnant.
• I am not self-centered enough to force my opinion on someone elses reproductive choices.
• I prefer the Macintosh operating system.