My post includes several quotes and personal opinions on the ideas mentioned in the thread so far.
Originally posted by MDLarson:
Well, I think it is impossible to try and assign the beginning of human life to a single point between conception and birth, as it is, of course, a very gradual process. I've always believed that [human] life began at conception, and I don't think that view will change much. I view it as quite simple:
Sperm cells and egg cell are separate, and considered part of the parents' bodies, so they are also to be considered "living" cells, albeit not a new person. I think that it is simply after a romantic evening (or whatever) when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism.
I think it is possible to assign the beginning of human life. At what point during the development is the unborn child/fetus able to survive with current medical technology outside the uterus? Answer: When it is sufficiently developed enough to sustain its own life with the assistance of a machine that can simulate the uterine environment (i.e. providing nutrition, environmental temperature, etc...). I should also include in my proposed definition of "human life" a life that is capable of developing into a sentient being that can think and experience emotions. Thinking and emotion are the two most important qualities that I can think of that we as humans use to distinguish between ourselves and the animals. I don't know how the "cut-off" date is assigned for aborting unborn children, but I would think that it uses some rationalle similar to this. I would have to do some digging to find this out. Let you all know soon.
Originally posted by testuser:
* Not everyone believes that a human life is supreme to all else. Some believe in the death penalty (usually the religious folks, oddly enough), and some believe in euthanasia.
Furthermore, I believe that science cannot solely determine law. Science is not concerned with right or wrong, simply how things work. There is a religious basis to law, however I believe there should be strong reluctance from adopting any single religious point of view on this matter. One needs only to look at religious governments like the Taliban, to understand why secular government is the best for all citizens.
Regarding this comment, I agree that this is true, but I also think that when proven with conclusive and damning evidence, there should be no "life terms without parole". If people aren't fit to live with other humans in society, then they should be put to death and reduce the burden of the cost of their incarcerated lives on the resources of our society. We spend more money to keep people in jail than we do to rid our society of homelessness and disadvantaged living conditions, meaning to help these people to better quality lives. Our society is more concerned with punishment than PREVENTING and CORRECTING the problems leading to crime.
Some of the religous basis in our law is holding back our society from advancing, meaning, solving the real root of why crimes are commited rather than punishment. I was recently summoned for jury duty and talked to my advisor about how to get out of it. He said just to write back requesting that my jury duty be postponed until I graduate. He also said that I will mostlikely NEVER serve on a jury because of my level of education and the field of my study. Lawyers like to pick juries that can be swayed with emotion rather than logic. How else does our legal system convict people to life terms on circumstantial evidence? If I were to serve on a jury, I would probably end of moving the jury from a "sure conviction - YEAH, HE DONE IT, HE'S THE ONE" to the "not guilty" verdict due to insufficient evidence for a conviction. The problem is is that prosecutors don't like to work at getting to the truth, just the conviction.
Thinking about crime in general and the human condition, I think that the real cause of it is a combination of humans being sentient beings and not having the where with all to legally change their condition, resulting in law-breaking citizens. This also includes mental impairment, IQ (lack of), education (lack of), reasoning (bad, flawed, or incorrect). Humans are perceptive, they look around and see what others have, and will use whatever means they have to obtaining whatever it is they want, breaking the law if they must.
Sorry that this got a little off topic.
)
