Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda
give me a valid argument that all human life is sacred and must be protected at all cost without reverting to religion
ignoring the God aspect then, i simply believe that we should spend more time and effort into ensuring the quality of life for the people that are already here, and not on "potential" humans whose parents wouldn't be ready to care for them properly. i recommend you look at the documentary Aftermath: Population Overload on the National Geographic Channel, to see what will happen if the human population keeps expanding beyond what our planet can support
|
I simply believe that all humans have the same rights, no matter how old they are. I know that 100% the human genetic codes are present even in an embrio, and that it simply comes down to what stage of development you believe an embrio or fetus becomes a human.
For me, this is the grey area, and personally this is where other grey areas exist as well. I think it's absurd to say a fetus isn't human, and then ten seconds later when the fetus is born all of a sudden its a human baby.
I also believe that being Human doesn't have any scientific parameters except that you are born of two other human's DNA through reproduction. Therefore, as a human, even though you can't speak for yourself, may be dependant on another, or are not as old as other people, you deserve the same rights as other humans.
Developmental timelines are inherently flawed because, by that developmental timeline logic, a 90-year old man is more human than a 30-year old woman. Who's life is more valuable then? Most people who see disparity in the values of human lives would probably say that the 30 year old woman deserves to continue to live because there is more potential for her life and the old man has lived a lifetime already.
Therefore, I draw my conclusions that, if Humans are born of two other humans, and that developmental timelines are flawed, that humanity begins at conception.
If all humans are equal, then even a human that has no fingers, hair, eyes, voice, is still a human and has rights. We have a resposibility to that human to facilitate their rights until they can stand up for themselves.
I don't think, as you state "that we should spend more time and effort into ensuring the quality of life for the people that are already here" because once a human is conceived, they have the right to live.
By your logic, if basic life necesities were projected to vanish in 1 year unless we "abort/kill" half of the population, we would kill everyone younger than the average age... let's say 30 years old.
So now we're really splitting hairs again. Is a 29 year old born in August 1981 less human than a 30 year old born in July 1981? I say no.
.................
Now, lets examine a worst case scenario: Some disgusting dirty uncle rapes and impregnates his 16 year old niece. He has HIV. The mother is infected, and the child is not only infected, but severely disabled.
I still fail to see why the baby should pay with his/her life. This punishes the baby for a crime the baby did not commit.
If the mother has unbelievable conviction and strength, she gives birth to the child, but cannot look at the child without recounting the horrible rape from her uncle.
She gives the child up for adoption, and the child basically goes into an orphanage for special needs children. There are people there who can love and care for the child, give him/her the best possible quality of life, and perhaps in the next 20 years that the baby is alive, there are "miraculous" breakthroughs in HIV research which finds a vaccine or cure.
Far fetched? Yes, ridiculously far fetched. But also has the advantage of being 100% uncertain. If you had Cancer and the Doc said "Hey, you have 6 months to live with only a 10% chance to survive", and you going to say "screw it Doc, kill me now."? It really doesnt matter, because either way- you had the choice. The infant never did.