Value of Life
2004.11.21 2:14

Rousseau tells us there are two births for us.
..One is a delivery and the second birth is after we aquire Self usually after we come of age.
Life ought to be a biological concept at any moment, however, according to various phases life faces, as a matter of fact the value of life varies.
Biologically life is equal, but the value of it differs according to stages of development in individual life. Again life is a social concept, though ought to be a biological concept in theory, in ideal. So only after the second birth we are bestowed another value in our life. Not before.
Among aborted 1.6 millon, we might have found another Einstein, as well as another Hitler. Nobody can tell at the time of abortion, what would become of aborted child in their future, if they are delivered.
I mean we might have killed another Einstein, but at the same time we might have killed another Hitler. In this case we had done it most succesfully. Nipped in the bud.
That's all what we could say, which neither deter nor encourage our development.
Our standpoint in society is that we can't say anything about something that cannot predict at the time done something definitive.
Nothing can change its uncertainty.
However I agree. we hope we shall have a better society where we don't have to abort our babies any more.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Value of Life Preferences Top 9 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 9 comments 0: 9 comments 1: 9 comments 2: 4 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
causes(Score:2)
by freejung (624389) * <freejung@freejunglepictures.com> on 2004.11.21 6:21 (#10876540) (http://www.freenaturepictures.com/ Last Journal: 2005.03.30 5:04)
we hope we shall have a better society where we don't have to abort our babies any more.
I think that's very insightful. We need to look for the social causes that create the situation of abortion in the first place. Trying to stop the symptom by making it illegal will not help, since people will just do it illegally. You have to look for the cause, and try to solve that.
This is typical of the difference between liberal and conservative approaches. Conservatives, in my view, tend to look at the symptom and try to punish it, so for example with the drug problem, you punish those who use drugs in the attempt to stop them. But they will not look at the cause of drug use, and try to address the social problems that make people want to turn to drugs in the first place. I think you can never really solve problems without fixing the cause.--My new site: Free Nature Pictures [freenaturepictures.com]
Re:causes(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.23 0:24 (#10888168) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
As you mentioned above there are two ways for resolving the problem-one is surgical and the other is internal medicinal- if we use the medical term.
As you noticed, the current administration has been approaching the problems by surgical measures, we like or not.
9/11 was an exteremely horrible thing. How they act if it was under the another administration we are not sure. The another administration might have done the same thing. More harshly? We are not totally sure...
I think people in current administration are liberal. All they have 'reason'. I hope they take more moderate measure, which will get more support from the ordinary, instead of taking a surgical measure, which will get less support from the ordinary. I sincerely hope so.
Are you surprised I'm saying the current administration is liberal? The Clinton Administration was a very liberal administration. I was almost completely satisfied with his policies. I found there are two types of Democrats. One is very liberal, being aware of human rights, environment conscious.- I know you like it.
And the other is so system-stricken, very rigorous, favour of protectionist's measure, who might not become popular in international arena. Domestically he might get more popularity. He might give American workers more job more salary at the expense of foreign countries' interest. But you people chose Bush. As long as Bush keeps on giving us a special favour, the Bush Administration is a good administrative body..At least for us.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:causes(Score:2)
by freejung (624389) * <freejung@freejunglepictures.com> on 2004.11.23 11:57 (#10894725) (http://www.freenaturepictures.com/ Last Journal: 2005.03.30 5:04)
Interesting perspective. I think, in the long term, you will find that Bush is not doing you any favors. But we will see.
I think perhaps you are from Japan? The situation in East Asia is very interesting to the Bush administration. I think their great fear is that East Asia will form a powerful economic block to compete with the US. I think they will move to stop this, and they are willing to let the dollar collapse if that's what it takes to slow down economic growth in Asia.
But we will see.--My new site: Free Nature Pictures [freenaturepictures.com] [ Parent ]
Re:causes(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.24 20:33 (#10907948) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
China's economy has been growing very rapidly-10% plus by year.
China is now substantially a capitalist country-state capitalism instead of using the term state socialism. In fact China's coastal area has been showing some similarity with East Asia capitalist countries, in landscape, in social structure, in fashion, mode...
China's geographically unbelievably near to Japan.
But chasm between two countries is not very easy to be filled.
-Fortunately, unlike the cases of other two adjacent countries, big deep sea is between us. So basically, we keep independence and can evade heinous conflicts.
By the way.. you know Japan has its free trade agreement with Singapore and Mexico already. The Philipines's going to be the next one for sure.
Japan is going to have a free trade agreement with such countries as located in a Pacific Rim.
Even though China is very close to Japan geographically, ONLY AFTER Japan had such agreement with the rest of the Pasific Rim countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, US Pacific States( Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii ), Canada, Indonesia, Philipines, Taiwan, and even with Viet Num, Then CHINA will allow to be a participant of this free trade agreement.
Once China will allow to participate in an economic bloc of a kind, Japan will concede the leader's role to China.
Compared with China, Japan is in its size, population, let alone in natural resourses, even in potential economy, cannot compete.
China is more than ten-times larger than Japan in any aspect. Japan cannot compete with China from the beginning.
China, instead of Japan, is going to be the Leader of these countries and areas.
I mean formation of East Asian Economic Bloc is NOT ahead of that of Pacific Rim's, and means almost nothing to America.
Japan has been playing a subordinate role in world economy behind US and EU so far. Japan will play again subordinate role in future economy behind US, EU and China. Japan always play a subordinate role and never be able to be a frontrunner. As a small island country, it's destiny.
All will occur at least after more 50 years to come.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:causes(Score:2)
by Tikiman (468059) * on 2004.11.25 0:40 (#10909284)
Trying to stop the symptom by making it illegal will not help, since people will just do it illegally.If abortions are made illegal, they would drop from over a million legal ones to probably several thousand illegal ones. Just look what Roe vs Wade did to abortion rates to get an idea of the effect of legal abortion-on-demand. If you think the abortion "problem" is that abortion is a homicide, making it outright illegal would go a long way to fixing it.
Now with regard to other issues, you have a point - for example, conservatives would outlaw prostitution without addressing the underlying social issues that force women into it. However, abortion is not the same animal - over 90% of the time it involves a personal choice between a man and a woman - there are no underying social issues to fix. It affects all races, all social classes. See the statistics [about.com] for yourself - the most common reason given in 25.5% of abortions is "women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing". The next is 21.3% at "women cannot afford a baby". Many abortions happen because men and women make a personal choice to have sex without regard to consequences. Because you can't legislate people into not having sex when they have no intention of raising the child, you are forced to legislate against the abortion itself.[ Parent ]
Re:causes(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.27 0:05 (#10924484) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
In every aspect, your opinion is getting the point. Making prostitution illegal is irrelevant to society without fixing social issues. Making abortion illegal is unnecessary because there are no social issues to fix. Pro-choice is for women who want to keep their lifestyle-25.5% and women who cannot afford babies-21.3%. As long as people like you occupy majority, abortion is not going to be illegal. Safe.
By the way, abortion was widely held, though, abortion itself was illegal in Japan. It was widely held under the law called 'eugenic species protection law'. This law was abolished several years ago because it was a loophole. Considering the meaning of the word, I feel shivered.
If there were only case which is illegal, there might be done forcibly under the name of 'protection of eugenic species' from one people to another, it must be very illegal. Over 90% of the time it involves a personal choice between a man and a woman. Which means less than 10% case it involves something other than a personal choice. What was that?--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:causes(Score:2)
by Tikiman (468059) * on 2004.11.27 3:00 (#10926028)
As long as people like you occupy majority, abortion is not going to be illegal. Safe.I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding what you are trying to say - I am most definitely against abortion in general, specifically how our culture treats abortion as a constitutional right. There is no reason why abortion can't be safe under narrow conditions, described below. Japan's Maternal Protection Law seems like a good law because it narrowly defines when an abortion is appropriate, but it is impossible for such a law to be passed in the United States.
Which means less than 10% case it involves something other than a personal choice. What was that?Some times it is for the health of the mother - that is, the bringing the baby to term would have seriously hurt or killer the mother. This is, in my mind, a very legitimate case for an abortion, as the loss of the mother's life must be balanced against the loss of the fetus's life. Another cause is the "health of the fetus" - mothers can get genetic screening before the baby is born to determine if it have some terrible disease, and they can choose to have an abortion if they want. This is very morally shaky, as it is a short logical leap to start euthanizing infants once they are born as well. A tiny fraction of abortions occur because a woman was raped. This is the harded position for a pro-life person to defend - but it is not necessary to make abortion a fundamental constitutional right to allow women to have an abortion in this narrow instance.[ Parent ]
Correct(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.27 4:11 (#10926570) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
I am most definitely against abortion in general.
Me too. It was needless to say.
it is not necessary to make abortion a fundamental constitutional right to allow women to have an abortion in this narrow instance.
Exactly. I am simply against an abortion making illegal.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:causes(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.27 23:28 (#10930574) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
Japan's Maternal Protection Law seems like a good law because it narrowly defines when an abortion is appropriate, but it is impossible for such a law to be passed in the United States.
I thought it was abolished several years ago, but only name changed and still in force.
(1) For the health of the mother, this is, in my mind, a very legitimate case for an abortion.(2)... genetic screening, this is very morally shaky.(3) A woman was raped. This is the harded position for a pro-life person to defend.
You very clearly state permissible cases.