Value of life, again
2004.11.21 2:48

Yeah...You are right..Life is a biological concept. Everyone has to have a very precious ...bestowed life...It's definitely irreplacable.
Of course everybody knows life starts from the moment of conception and of course many people know that law does not allow unborn baby to hold personhood...I know life is a biological concept, but at the same time life should not be regarded as it is.
In this respect, life should be regarded as social rather than biological concept I may say... I assume you put too much emphasis on life of individual body.
Everybody in a civilised society knows individual unit or body is first and foremost important, should be protected by law at any time. But from time to time it is something that has to be sacrificed in the name of public interest. If one's life were useful for helping other's life more than one, one is worth being sacrificed.
Kamikaze turned out to be a worthless act, but at that time, young people believed its beneficial for saving Japan, Japanese people, the Emperor, even their family. So they did.
If someone's life is useful to save tens of thousands of lives, its worth sacrificing it. Death does not mean anything in itself. Death of serial killer brings about general applause among ordinary citizens.
Death of very good doctor who saved tens of thousands of patients brings about thousands of sad cries around the world.
Death of unborn baby causes sadness in its parents, but they can keep it in their minds till the end of time.
Death of very old people causes sadness among those who know well, but still they can give it up as a matter of natural consequence.
As death means always in many ways. A value of life is not equal and should not be equal, either. And in a natural consequence of this argument, there is a difference in weight of life. So if you believe kinds of communal society is an ideal, its a ricecake drawn in a paper( which means something impossible to exist).
Thus I conclude it's the right form of society for us to be exposed by a very sever struggle of life. And I believe this real world we live materialise this idea. So I want to accept it rather possitively.
... I'm going to write about relationship between civilisation and war later...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Value of life, again Preferences Top 11 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 11 comments 0: 11 comments 1: 11 comments 2: 6 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.
Personhood != Human Being- and Human Rights(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2004.11.23 2:11 (#10889197) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
Whether the law recognizes the personhood of the unborn fetus is totally beside the point. I'm pro-life; and I hope the law never does, or else chances are human babies will be born with 9 months of tax debt...However, in 1948 the UN adopted as a part of the new international law an idea called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One does not have to be a person to inherit these rights- one needs merely be human. Article 2 of these rights, in part, states that we cannot discriminate (with respect to these rights) against people based on circumstances of birth, including whether it has happened yet or not. Article 3 states that everybody has an equal right to life. And Article 25 suggests how we might do this, by valuing human life so much that we provide special economic circumstances for Motherhood and Childhood.It's my belief that this must come BEFORE we make abortion illegal. Too bad the Republicans and Democrats are far too adicted to profit to provide special economic circumstances for the most innocent human beings in the country.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid.
Re:Personhood != Human Being- and Human Rights(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.25 1:12 (#10909539) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
I would like to shed light on this topic from slightly different perspective.
Suppose we men were different, different animal than women. We men have sometimes have fun with women without serious intent. If protection were perfect, possibilities of her pregnancy would reduce to almost nil. But things are not so well done always. In this particular case, if you were the person, what would you do? You ask her to abort, give her a consent to give birth?
But you don't love her at all. What would you do?
Pro-life is a men-sided selfish idea. Men are not responsible for his causing her pregnant, while he declare she ought to give birth because he is pro-life?--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Personhood != Human Being- and Human Rights(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2004.11.25 4:10 (#10911275) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
Suppose we men were different, different animal than women. We men have sometimes have fun with women without serious intent. If protection were perfect, possibilities of her pregnancy would reduce to almost nil. But things are not so well done always. In this particular case, if you were the person, what would you do? You ask her to abort, give her a consent to give birth? Of couse let her give birth! Take responsibility for my actions.But you don't love her at all. What would you do? If you don't love her, you shouldn't have had sex with her. But if you did anyway, you should take responsibility for the act and not punish the child for your lack of discretion.Pro-life is a men-sided selfish idea. Men are not responsible for his causing her pregnant, while he declare she ought to give birth because he is pro-life? The UDHR was written by a woman, not a man- Elaenor Roosevelt. The pro-life movement was started by a woman and a feminist, not a man- Susan B. Anthony. So your argument that pro-life is male only is a falsehood to begin with.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid. [ Parent ]
Re:Personhood != Human Being- and Human Rights(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.25 5:34 (#10912218) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
The UDHR was written by a woman, not a man- Elaenor Roosevelt. The pro-life movement was started by a woman and a feminist, not a man- Susan B. Anthony. So your argument that pro-life is male only is a falsehood to begin with.
But the nature of pro-life is only convenient for men. In return pro-choice is who's choice? Men's? No, it's women's choice. Pro-choice is for women who happened to be pregnant from irresponsible men and whose pro-choice is unavoidable for economic reason or keeping independent way of life for women.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Personhood != Human Being- and Human Rights(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2004.11.25 5:59 (#10912484) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
But the nature of pro-life is only convenient for men. No it isn't- women feel the need to be moral and a duty to the next generation as well. It's about taking responsibility for your actions, whoever you are. Both genders are equally responsible for the original act; thus both genders are equally responsible for the outcome of that act.In return pro-choice is who's choice? Men's? 37% of abortions in the United States, according to the Elliot Institute, are due to men pressuring women into getting abortions- so quite often, it is about a man's right to have sex and not pay the consequences of that action.Pro-choice is for women who happened to be pregnant from irresponsible men and whose pro-choice is unavoidable for economic reason or keeping independent way of life for women. As Susan B. Anthony quite famously wrote- independance built on the death of the next generation is a trap of slavery. REAL sexual independance comes from making sure both men and women understand that sex is always, and should be, a minimum 20 year commitment to the relationship.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid. [ Parent ]
We need an Affirmative Action(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.26 22:50 (#10923927) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
Both genders are equally responsible for the original act; thus both genders are equally responsible for the outcome of that act.
In reality, women are much more responsible for their babies. Only when women judge they can afford to raise their babies, they should be able to make a decision to have babies. Women are in nature much more pro-life than men. Men don't have to persuade women to be pro-life before men to be pro-life. So I said pro-life is for men who don't want to take responsibility but still want their babies in their partner's responsibility. If you agree on this, don't you think it's a selfish idea only for men?
37% of abortions in the United States, according to the Elliot Institute, are due to men pressuring women into getting abortions- so quite often, it is about a man's right to have sex and not pay the consequences of that action.
If so, 63% of abortions are made by women. They must have made a decision after taking many aspects into consideration-their partner's irresponsibility, keep their way of life, at the risk of her physical disorder. And in the case of 37%, too, men can only ask or persuade, but cannot force them to do so. Then finally women must have made a decision not to have. If you agree on this, you must be ready to feel that pro-choice is not for men but women.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:We need an Affirmative Action(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2004.11.27 4:00 (#10926499) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
In reality, women are much more responsible for their babies. Only when women judge they can afford to raise their babies, they should be able to make a decision to have babies. Women are in nature much more pro-life than men. Men don't have to persuade women to be pro-life before men to be pro-life. So I said pro-life is for men who don't want to take responsibility but still want their babies in their partner's responsibility. If you agree on this, don't you think it's a selfish idea only for men? That's the point- I don't agree on this. I think that abdication of fatherly responsibilities is a fairly modern invention- and one that steals from us a certain part of our humanity. We've stolen something from our sons when we don't teach them that having sex is a commitment to family. We've stolen something from ourselves when we have sex for recreation rather than for procreation. By separating sex from ALL the responsibility that it entails, we've lost something very valuable. The pro-life movement should restore that- should restore fatherhood responsibility- else it WILL fail.If so, 63% of abortions are made by women. They must have made a decision after taking many aspects into consideration-their partner's irresponsibility, keep their way of life, at the risk of her physical disorder. The last is the one that society doesn't tell women the truth about- the risk of her physical/mental disorder is MUCH greater with abortion than with pregnancy- about 2.52x as much in mortality rates alone. The other two- well, we need to work on partner's irresponsibility, and according to the UDHR, we're supposed to allow special economic circumstances for mothers and children to prevent that from ever happening to begin with. Of course- human rights don't matter to pro-choicers by and large.And in the case of 37%, too, men can only ask or persuade, but cannot force them to do so. Really? Haven't you ever heard of spousal abuse? A man most certainly CAN use his phsyical strength to force a woman to have an abortion- if by no other way than by hitting the fetus repeatedly until the woman miscarries.Then finally women must have made a decision not to have. Why? If we eliminate all the reasons to have an abortion, why should she continue to have that decision to make? Better yet- what woman would make the decision to abort if she knew ALL the facts before hand?If you agree on this, you must be ready to feel that pro-choice is not for men but women. Once again, I don't agree- everything you've stated is an outside pressure, forcing the woman into the decision to abort. What I'm saying is that you can't have true choice until you eliminate ALL the outside pressures.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid. [ Parent ]
Re:We need an Affirmative Action(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.28 0:47 (#10930990) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
I think that abdication of fatherly responsibilities is a fairly modern invention
We have no proof. I cannot assert so. I think fatherhood is common throughout history.
having sex is a commitment to family.
Very insightful.- Next time I'll try stating before her. Laughing prevent us from doing furthermore.
We've stolen something from ourselves when we have sex for recreation rather than for procreation.
We procreate as many times as the number of kids. Otherwise, we have sex for just fun. Many people have sex for fun not for procreation. Regardless married or unmarried, couples use protection. There are homosexuals. They cannot bear kids from their act. There are couples whose partner cannot reproduce their offspring.
By separating sex from ALL the responsibility that it entails, we've lost something very valuable.
Childbearing and responsibilities are so closely connected , but sex and responsibilities have no relationship. Under the consent of two opposite gender(in the case of heterosexuals), we can have sex without any responsibility.
Really?
There might be cases of DV, but not around.
Once again, I don't agree- everything you've stated is an outside pressure, forcing the woman into the decision to abort. What I'm saying is that you can't have true choice until you eliminate ALL the outside pressures.
You are right.- We all are exposed by severe outside pressure and cannot have true choice and I don't think it's easy either.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:We need an Affirmative Action(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2004.11.30 5:36 (#10945832) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
We have no proof. I cannot assert so. I think fatherhood is common throughout history. I have some proof in Western culture- just about every power structure in Western culture was patriarchial (father as head of household) which would tend to suggest a fatherhood structure being common in the family units as well. Likewise- this patriarchial structure can also be found in the monotheistic religions- God is almost always considered to be male.Very insightful.- Next time I'll try stating before her. Laughing prevent us from doing furthermore. Not if you go about it right and get married first. :-).We procreate as many times as the number of kids. Otherwise, we have sex for just fun. Many people have sex for fun not for procreation. Regardless married or unmarried, couples use protection. There are homosexuals. They cannot bear kids from their act. There are couples whose partner cannot reproduce their offspring. Separation of the procreative intent from the recreative act is what leads to such things as homosexuality, use of birth control in marriage. It's only in the last 100 years or so that sex for recreation has really become popular in the west. In the East it's different- but in the west, sex has largely been for procreation only among respectible people for several thousand years.Childbearing and responsibilities are so closely connected , but sex and responsibilities have no relationship. Under the consent of two opposite gender(in the case of heterosexuals), we can have sex without any responsibility. So what do you do when the birth control fails (since no form of birth control is 100%)? The sex act is the begining of childbearing- without it no childbearing can take place, so it's obvious that's the evolutionary reason for it.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid. [ Parent ]
Re:We need an Affirmative Action(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2004.11.30 14:21 (#10950124) (http://mercedo.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
Partriarchial-not only in the west but in the east too. In primitive aera there might have been matriarchial ages. Both west and east civilisations have already broken out of this histrical stage. You said fatherhood is diminishing. Any proof?
Maybe those respectable people didn't have to think about economy for child bearing for several thousand years. It's only in the last 100 years or so when population exlosion occurred. If today we haven't thought about any form of population control -including contraceptive(recommendable), abortion, we could not cope with arising polulation problems effectively, and there are no substantial differences on the purpose of sex between west and east.
So what do you do when the birth control fails. In general this is going to be toughest question for those two involved. If I were the one, I cannot give her consent to give birth so easiliy.
In the first place sex is not only for procreation but recreation. Those women whose age is around over 45 after menopause cannot produce offsprings any more, but sex act continues. There are women who took overy or womb in operation. If I don't want kids, I would like to choose my partner from these women.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:We need an Affirmative Action(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2004.12.01 4:15 (#10955188) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
You said fatherhood is diminishing. Any proof? In America, there's plenty of proof- and some of it isn't even recent. In _My Bondage, My Freedom_, Freedman Douglas wrote way back in 1855 about how the slave owners in the south separated fathers from families ON PURPOSE to keep the family as slaves. This tradition has carried through to modern African-American families unfortuneately; that community has a large percentage of single mothers trying to raise kids, most of whom had absent fathers themselves going back several generations. Likewise, the divorce rate in America is quite high- around 75% now- with the average marriage lasting a mere 10 years. This isn't enough to raise children to adulthood. In MOST cases- far over 80%, though I do not have the exact figures handy- the court awards primary custody to the mother. There has been a movement for the last 50 years or so to directly deny fatherhood as being usefull, despite several studies that say otherwise.Maybe those respectable people didn't have to think about economy for child bearing for several thousand years. It's only in the last 100 years or so when population exlosion occurred. If today we haven't thought about any form of population control -including contraceptive(recommendable), abortion, we could not cope with arising polulation problems effectively, and there are no substantial differences on the purpose of sex between west and east. What most people don't realize is that it isn't sex that CAUSED the population explosion, though it played a role. It was a huge increase in food supply and life extension medical practices. In 1900, for instance, the United States had a negligible divorce rate- but the average marriage only lasted 7 years due to DEATH. People remarried- but there's a reason why even in the 1930s retirement age was set at 60- because very few people lived to be that old. Also, the population boom has yet to touch so-called developed countries, which due to pollution have a lower fertility rate to begin with.In general this is going to be toughest question for those two involved. If I were the one, I cannot give her consent to give birth so easiliy. If you were married before having sex- that choice would be much easier.In the first place sex is not only for procreation but recreation. Those women whose age is around over 45 after menopause cannot produce offsprings any more, but sex act continues. There are women who took overy or womb in operation. If I don't want kids, I would like to choose my partner from these women. We've put far too much emphasis on the recreative aspect and not nearly enough emphasis on the procreative aspect. This is why the United States needs immigrants- even if we outlawed abortion tomorrow, we'd still be 500,000 people a year dying more than are born.Having said that- this is a good option from several standpoints- first, she's not likely to bear any children, second, there's very little competition as 45 is the mortality tipping point for gender ratios, and third, she's likely to have had a first family/first husband and thus come with some assets.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid.