Do you value life?

[kopilo]

I've heard this a number of times by anti-abortionists, that they value life as opposed to not valuing life.

However I wonder how much they do really value life, I mean abortion is not a solution to our worlds hunger and poverty issue but when it is considered above our environmental issues I start to wonder how much do people really care about life, or is it that they care about their personal dislike.

I have no issue with people being passionate about their personal dislike, but I hate it when they say they care about life in the similar way a pessimist may say they are not pessimistic but a realist...

I gather we agree that Africa has a hunger issue and that is caused by a lack of food for the demand of food. So if we were say to 'solve' abortion and the number of births doesn't go down or increase, have we really solved an issue of life. Moreover apparently there are more spiecies of animals becoming extinct more rapidly then ever before, yet we do not seem to care about that or is it that when we say 'we value life' we are really saying 'we only value human life'?

 

[FSTDT]

Moreover apparently there are more spiecies of animals becoming extinct more rapidly then ever before, yet we do not seem to care about that or is it that when we say 'we value life' we are really saying 'we only value human life'?

People kill plants, animals, and microbes all the time, and don't really think about it. But they don't take human life with such ease, which clearly implies that something having the property of "life" is irrelevant otherwise there would be no way to make moral distinctions between taking plant and human life. But the difference between plant and human life is that humans have moral characteristics that make them worth protecting, and plants lack those characteristics. In this way, people don't actually value life for the sake of valuing life, but rather they value life because its a prerequisite for respecting the other moral characteristics that beings have.

However, it was never very clear to me why something being "human life" makes it matter morally, but being "animal life" makes it acceptable to kill. People who say they value only human life aren't really making a moral statement at all (at least not in the literal sense of the words), because species membership isn't a moral characteristic. There are morally relevant capacities that might correlate with species (for instance feeling pain is a morally relevant characteristic that correlates with mammals but not with plants), but then the moral relevance is shifted over to those capacities and not on species itself.

But because the characteristic "human life" in itself doesn't actually carry moral relevance (species membership is irrelevant and its evident that something having "life" doesn't make it worth protecting), saying that you value human life doesn't appear to be an actual moral statement. Probably most people don't mean that they actually think species membership is a moral characteristic when they say they value human life, but they really mean they value the particular morally relevant characteristics that correlate with humans. So, for people who are anti-abortion, all it takes is to name the actual morally relevant characteristics they are talking about which makes human life valuable.

After naming those morally relevant characteristics (I imagine they would include the capacity to feel pain and satisfaction, be rational, have goals and interests, have a desire for continued existence, etc), we just need to do a check for moral consistency: do fetuses actually have those morally relevant characteristics?

If people can actually name the morally relevant characterstics that apply to the fetus, then they can say they value life for the sake of protecting the other characteristics the fetus has. But if fetus lacks the characteristics that makes beings valuable and has only the property of life, then theres no claim at all that abortion is morally wrong.



So in a nutshell, no one actually values life for the sake of life itself on the basis that they take life on the slightest whim, and no one values human life for the sake of species membership because species isn't a moral characteristic. Life is valued because its a prerequisite for respecting the other morally relevant characteristics a being has; at least for me, I don't value beings for the sake that they are alive, but rather because they can feel pain and satisfaction, have an experiential welfare, and generally have an expressed interest in their continued existence. If a being have just life without any other characteristics (such as a plant), then I don't think there is any morally compelling reason for protecting its life.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I've heard this a number of times by anti-abortionists, that they value life as opposed to not valuing life.

However I wonder how much they do really value life, I mean abortion is not a solution to our worlds hunger and poverty issue but when it is considered above our environmental issues I start to wonder how much do people really care about life, or is it that they care about their personal dislike.

I have no issue with people being passionate about their personal dislike, but I hate it when they say they care about life in the similar way a pessimist may say they are not pessimistic but a realist...

I gather we agree that Africa has a hunger issue and that is caused by a lack of food for the demand of food. So if we were say to 'solve' abortion and the number of births doesn't go down or increase, have we really solved an issue of life. Moreover apparently there are more spiecies of animals becoming extinct more rapidly then ever before, yet we do not seem to care about that or is it that when we say 'we value life' we are really saying 'we only value human life'?

Well, life is important, but which would affect you more: A human infant being murdered or a kangaroo population slowly decreasing?

I think it's kinda human to value human life a bit more than animal or plant. I mean, these are important, but I wouldn't be freaking out over a kangaroo population vs. an infant being harmed. Would you?

 

[kopilo]

Well, life is important, but which would affect you more: A human infant being murdered or a kangaroo population slowly decreasing?

I think it's kinda human to value human life a bit more than animal or plant. I mean, these are important, but I wouldn't be freaking out over a kangaroo population vs. an infant being harmed. Would you?

If/when things like the murray river close up, then I will be very worried because even though it is just a river and doesn't have any soul or moral values it is basically my hometown's lifeblood, we can not survive without water. No life can live without water.

If you didn't gather, yes an animal species dying out does freak me out more then one infant dying. When our environment dies out so will all of us.

If you still find this inhumane, then maybe you need to have a read over Genesis 1:26-30.

Ohh and if you didn't know our Hon. John Howard is currently promoting people to have children through giving them funds during the first year or so but as far as the environment is concerned take a look at Tasmania's old growth forest logging.

I would agree that preservation and valuation of both human and environmental life is important but at this point in time, our total human population is not exactly dying out.

 

[Merlin]

Abortion, or lack thereof has no effect on global warming, or any other environmental issue.
Nor does it effect food availability.
There is an abundance of food.

 

[rebelEnigma]

Abortion, or lack thereof has no effect on global warming, or any other environmental issue.
Nor does it effect food availability.
There is an abundance of food.

The only problem is that that abundance of food is not distributed effectively to parts of the world that need it.

 

[Merlin]

The only problem is that that abundance of food is not distributed effectively to parts of the world that need it.

I agree.
But that's a political issue, not a value-of-life issue

 

[Moros]

Life itself is nothing sacred. Pretty much everything is alive.

 

[kopilo]

Abortion, or lack thereof has no effect on global warming, or any other environmental issue.
Nor does it effect food availability.
There is an abundance of food.

Actually it does effect demand for food. It also effects how much fresh water, shelter, etc is needed. There are a lot of things we rely on the environment to provide us with when we grow up. Just try to imagine all the paper used in education each year. Or the amount of pollution factories and power plants create to allow us to keep our current way of life.

Of course all of the potential/prevelent problems mentioned are solvible, just like abortion, I guess it is just me that sees it as important to be able to sustain our way of life in a non-threatening way to the environment rather then to potentially add more people to the equasion.

 

[Ave Maria]

I value all life but I especially value human life.

 

[Mistadobalina]

I don't value any life.

 

[Toboe]

I don't value all life. If its someone that I care about in RL then I would value them but if its anyone else I probably won't care.

 

[Merlin]

Actually it does effect demand for food.

Food supply far exceeds demand.
And in a Capitalistic world, when there is more demand, more food is grown.

It also effects how much fresh water, shelter, etc is needed.

Yes, it effects need, but there is ample supply capacity.

There are a lot of things we rely on the environment to provide us with when we grow up. Just try to imagine all the paper used in education each year.

There are more trees in the US today than ever before.
Trees for paper are in abundant supply.

Or the amount of pollution factories and power plants create to allow us to keep our current way of life.

The factories pollute far less today than ever.

Of course all of the potential/prevelent problems mentioned are solvible,

And they are being solved just fine.

just like abortion, I guess it is just me that sees it as important to be able to sustain our way of life in a non-threatening way to the environment rather then to potentially add more people to the equasion.

People just aren't a significant issue.
Bad politics is though.
Just look at how bad the polution is in the former USSR.

 

[kopilo]

Food supply far exceeds demand.
And in a Capitalistic world, when there is more demand, more food is grown.



Yes, it effects need, but there is ample supply capacity.

Because you say? Or do you believe there are no limits to farming, of course how we farm is another issue altogether, which I don't suggest we get into.

There are more trees in the US today than ever before.
Trees for paper are in abundant supply.

Whopty do for the US, Old Growth forests all over the world are facing the chipping line. Or how about you take a gander at Japan's whaling issue.

The factories pollute far less today than ever.

Because? Also there are more of them starting up, *points to china* and do I need to mention the price of (fossil) fuel.

And they are being solved just fine.

Yeah how about you actually take a look at some environmental issues for a change, such as the Murray Darling River (Australia) mouth closing up. Or how about a mention to the rate of extinction, apparently it is more rapid then when the ice age occured.

People just aren't a significant issue.
Bad politics is though.
Just look at how bad the polution is in the former USSR.

How about we take a look at Mexico City, Milan, Tehran, Beijing, Calcutta, Delhi or Jakarta.

People are who can change the world. We will change our future.
"you must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Merlin]

Because you say? Or do you believe there are no limits to farming, of course how we farm is another issue altogether, which I don't suggest we get into.

No, not because I say so.
There are limits, I'm sure.
But I also know we are nowhere near the limits.
Certainly not close enough to justify the wholesale slaughter of children.

Whopty do for the US, Old Growth forests all over the world are facing the chipping line. Or how about you take a gander at Japan's whaling issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that infanticide would reduce whaling???
Again, it's a political issues.

Because? Also there are more of them starting up, *points to china* and do I need to mention the price of (fossil) fuel.

Again, it's a political issues.

Yeah how about you actually take a look at some environmental issues for a change, such as the Murray Darling River (Australia) mouth closing up. Or how about a mention to the rate of extinction, apparently it is more rapid then when the ice age occured.

Again, how do you suppose the wholesale slaughter of children would help?

How about we take a look at Mexico City, Milan, Tehran, Beijing, Calcutta, Delhi or Jakarta.

People are who can change the world. We will change our future.
"you must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

Do you imply that Mahatma Gandhi supported infanticide as a political solution?

See, you're not really discussing environmental issues, you're blaming children for political choices as if a lower population would fix things. Killing children doesn't change bad choices.
With 1/10th the population China would still industrialise and still pollute.

 

[Spherical Time]

Do you imply that Mahatma Gandhi supported infanticide as a political solution?

I think Kopilo meant to imply that Gandhi said something similar to the quote: "Against abortion? Don't have one." I don't think that he or she meant to imply that Gandhi supported infanticide as a political solution.

 

[kopilo]

I think Kopilo meant to imply that Gandhi said something similar to the quote: "Against abortion? Don't have one." I don't think that he or she meant to imply that Gandhi supported infanticide as a political solution.

Thankyou and I don't support infancide as a solution and I'm fairly sure Gandhi wouldn't either.

I also wouldn't claim to know the best solution.

But I also know we are nowhere near the limits.

Ohh ok so you have nothing to back up your claim.

Are you seriously suggesting that infanticide would reduce whaling???
Again, it's a political issues.

Nice outside view but that's not the cause. I mean we could say that abortion is a political issue, considering govenments could just legislate against it, ohh wait hasn't that already been tried before?

It is an economical and ecological issue, if Japan's govenment stopped the 'research' on whales then they would have an unemployement crisis.

See below about culling infants.

I don't suggest pointing the finger at the people who we elect (or don't prevent from being elected) for our worlds troubles.

Again, it's a political issues.

You can't just go, it's political, the point is that no matter if fossil fuels are running out now or not, they will eventually. Ohh and how would you like to have the great barrier reef destroyed for oil, that's been a suggested solution.

Again, how do you suppose the wholesale slaughter of children would help?

See, you're not really discussing environmental issues, you're blaming children for political choices as if a lower population would fix things. Killing children doesn't change bad choices.

Not what I am saying and hence is a:

[sarcasim]Of course we should rid the world of all children because they are evil little sadistic b******* and hence we should end the human race all together because we do nothing more productive then spit ****.[/sarcasim].

With 1/10th the population China would still industrialise and still pollute.

You've just said what I've been saying, no matter what we do with abortion it will not solve environmental issues. BTW if any country had 1/10th of their population they would have to strive to create as much pollution as they are now, because the ability to create as much would be less. Pollution isn't the main issue, the effects on the environment are.

Ahem and relating back to the Gandhi quote, it is basically meaning think global act local (but not in quite the same way as that saying suggests).

Just to add a little bit on the end, if you truely value life, then how can you not value the/a sustainer of life.