When Does Life Begin?

[AlphaToOmega]

...

Sure. Let's call it killing, as long as we agree that we're killing both human life and other lifeforms daily without second thoughts because we do consider context. And we accept that different parties at different times have the authority to make the decision.

 

Put it this way. Who decides a criminal should be executed? The sentencing is done by a judge.

 

Who decides to kill the intruder to your house when he attacks you? You or do you have to ask him to stop so you can go to court and ask a judge? Or is there reasonable situations for self-defense?

 

If a woman is pregnant, who should decide? You? A panel of experts? A judge? The woman?

 

Hmmm. Did you miss the part where I said I am pro choice and some of my other stuff?

I only ask because you are arguing the same things as I believe yet are coming across like we have a difference of opinion.

IOW we have the same views or near enough for there to be near no difference.

 

I was asked why I called it killing instead of abortion. I answered that direct question.

I also call it abortion but I fully understand the term to mean the conscious act of killing a life form.

In a forum I generally need to clarify as some people do not consider abortion killing at all.

I don't however make judgments for it or have the desire to impose my will on others.

[Vigile]

Also a single sperm is not the same as say fetus of 8months.

 

Probably. But there's also a difference between shooting a convenience store clerk in the head and aborting an 8 month old fetus.

 

I admit, my gut tells me it's wrong to abort an 8 month old fetus, but I also don't think it has hopes and dreams, and if its mother chooses to abort it, it may not have anyone hoping and dreaming for it either, which weighs into the equation I would think. On a scale of atrocities, it's pretty far down the list for me.

 

As Einstein reminds us, it's all relative.

[Ouroboros]

Hmmm. Did you miss the part where I said I am pro choice and some of my other stuff?

Yes. Yes, I did.

 

I only ask because you are arguing the same things as believe yet are coming across like we have a difference of opinion.

IOW we have the same views or near enough for there to be near no difference.

Sorry. Your viewpoint duly noted.

 

I was asked why I called it killing instead of abortion. I answered that direct question.

I also call it abortion but I fully understand the term to mean the conscious act of killing a life form.

In a forum I generally need to clarify as some people do not consider abortion killing at all.

I don't however make judgments for it or have the desire to impose my will on others.

Amen to that. And I'm a strong supporter of clarifying terms and proper use of them.

[DesertBob]

It has been human practice in certain cultures where safe abortion procedures were not available to kill babies post-pardum, commonly by exposure, if the child was unwanted or otherwise an undo burden on the family. Where safe abortion is unavailable today, is post-pardum abortion something you would support mothers choosing for themselves and their babies?

 

This thread is getting heated, so I want to mention that I am not trying to be smart or do a "gotcha". While I hold an opinion on this issue, I have a lot of curiosity and interest in growing my view on this issue with no particular destination in mind. I see it as a complicated topic to struggle over. And this is what popped into my head reading your post....

 

Phanta

I think that's a perfectly logical question.

 

I our society if we were to kill a child postpartum we'd presumably do it in a more humane fashion than exposure to the elements, probably along the lines of the more humane forms of capital punishment, i.e., injection of sedative followed by something to stop the heart.

 

That said, while the arbitrary boundary where a child is one moment in the womb and the next moment outside it, does not magically make the child more or less viable, or greatly change its rights relative to the mother or anyone else; it does not in and of itself greatly change the moral calculus we're discussing. So if we contemplate ending a child's life the fact that we do it pre or post-partum matters not. Except ... ;-)

 

I generally subscribe to the idea that the balancing of rights of a child vs mother and the balancing of the benefits vs the harms of a child entering the world of the living to grow up, DOES become much more complicated at that point where a child achieves certain developmental milestones that I DO consider more significant than birth. (I know that birth itself is tremendously significant to women, who have to go through the experience, and since it's the point at which a child starts looking and acting much more like a separate entity, it's something most people attach a lot of significance to -- still, I'm arguing that in and of itself it's not the big deal we make of it for purposes of this discussion).

 

The most important milestone in my view is the point at which substantial sentience is achieved. Once a child can experience pleasure or pain, and express desires for self-preservation beyond the purely instinctual, its rights and potentials have moved into much more weighty territory. The problem is, it's difficult to determine when that occurs even generally since you can't interview a neonate concerning the matter. However science has provided some clues, I'm told, and there is evidence to support that sentience is generally in place some weeks before birth -- I don't recall exactly how many. Of course it's like everything else in this realm, it's not binary, it is an unfolding / emerging phenomenon, and varies from one individual to the next, but some general empirical consensus exists now about when this milestone is typically achieved. I believe based on this that a child acquires substantially more rights at this point, which is significantly prior to birth and potentially even before physical viability outside the womb. I don't subscribe to it occurring at the moment of conception but I don't subscribe to it coming at or after birth.

 

I suppose the bottom line here is that if everyone brought awareness to the tremendous responsibility attached to creating new life, and decided to do so, or not, based on personal readiness to properly provide for and parent and nurture a child, we'd not have to ever face these kinds of decisions. The sooner and more mindfully such decisions are made, the better. However, mistakes happen. Birth control methods are not perfect. Rape happens. And so forth. So we're stuck with a decision that becomes more and more painful no matter which way it goes, the longer you wait after conception.

 

I think it's a good societal default that a mother who kills her own child is generally assumed to be either depraved or insane, not so much because such an act would never be morally justifiable (imagine a child with horrific painful incurable untreatable illness or deformity and an impoverished mother, for instance) but because such an act would nearly always be the result of a complete breakdown of sound judgment over many years.

 

As such I would argue that since virtually all such decisions can and should be taken well prior to birth, there is no need to make provision for legal termination of children after birth other than to end pointless suffering like we should accord any human being mercy for (serious illnesses, etc).

[AlphaToOmega]

Also a single sperm is not the same as say fetus of 8months.

 

Probably. But there's also a difference between shooting a convenience store clerk in the head and aborting an 8 month old fetus.

 

I admit, my gut tells me it's wrong to abort an 8 month old fetus, but I also don't think it has hopes and dreams, and if its mother chooses to abort it, it may not have anyone hoping and dreaming for it either, which weighs into the equation I would think. On a scale of atrocities, it's pretty far down the list for me.

 

Can't agree more.

 

I just like to be aware of what i do and how I impact life around me.

As an example, I'm a hunter. Some people condemn me for hunting yet they have no problem eating farmed meat that in many cases is rife with cruelty and misery for the animals.

I hunt because its less pain and misery to the animals and because its healthier.

Argue as much as I like they will never accept that I kill to eat or my reasons for doing so but they are more than happy to have someone else do it for them.

In one extreme example a woman refused to eat my hunted game but had no issue eating the farm raised meat.

She was disgusted with me because I killed animals and I was disgusted with her because of her narrow mindedness and hypocrisy.

If she had to kill the animals herself she would become a vegetarian.

Some people want ignorance.

I just want to be aware of exactly what I'm doing and make a fully informed decision then decide if that is what I want to do.

[AlphaToOmega]

Hmmm. Did you miss the part where I said I am pro choice and some of my other stuff?

Yes. Yes, I did.

 

I only ask because you are arguing the same things as believe yet are coming across like we have a difference of opinion.

IOW we have the same views or near enough for there to be near no difference.

Sorry. Your viewpoint duly noted.

 

I was asked why I called it killing instead of abortion. I answered that direct question.

I also call it abortion but I fully understand the term to mean the conscious act of killing a life form.

In a forum I generally need to clarify as some people do not consider abortion killing at all.

I don't however make judgments for it or have the desire to impose my will on others.

Amen to that. And I'm a strong supporter of clarifying terms and proper use of them.

 

LOL

 

No worries. Its easy to get lost in these threads and issues.

Happens to me often when there are many pages and the posts need context going back to page 1 to interpret correctly.

Sometimes its easy to work it out and other times it means reading 13pages first.

Happened to me yesterday in fact. I went off on a great rant only to realise if I had not read the post in isolation I would have realised they were completely agreeing with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

It has been human practice in certain cultures where safe abortion procedures were not available to kill babies post-pardum, commonly by exposure, if the child was unwanted or otherwise an undo burden on the family. Where safe abortion is unavailable today, is post-pardum abortion something you would support mothers choosing for themselves and their babies?

 

This thread is getting heated, so I want to mention that I am not trying to be smart or do a "gotcha". While I hold an opinion on this issue, I have a lot of curiosity and interest in growing my view on this issue with no particular destination in mind. I see it as a complicated topic to struggle over. And this is what popped into my head reading your post....

 

It is a very tough position. Personally, my opinion (based on my own values and emotions about this all) is that it should not be allowed after birth, and I have a huge personal issue with late term abortions too. As I said before, the right to life is incremental and grows during the pregnancy. There is not definite line. Early abortions, mother's choice. Late abortions, ... not banned, but not just the mother's choice. After birth, not mother's choice anymore.

[Ouroboros]

Happened to me yesterday in fact. I went off on a great rant only to realise if I had not read the post in isolation I would have realised they were completely agreeing with me.

I know how that feels!

[Vigile]

I our society if we were to kill a child postpartum we'd presumably do it in a more humane fashion than exposure to the elements, probably along the lines of the more humane forms of capital punishment,

 

You would hope so, but I remember a discussion here a few years ago where Australia was applauded for allowing a person to die rather than suffer a debilitating condition (not by this board, but the media). Rather than euthanize the person, they chose to cut off all food and water. It still sickens me to think about it.

[Vigile]

I hunt because its less pain and misery to the animals and because its healthier.

 

Ha! I applaud your logic here. It gives me something to think about. I killed a deer when I was 18 and looking into its eyes, which were full of fear, before it died, caused me to never hunt since. No doubt you're right that it's more humane. That event had such an impact on me though, I'm still not sure I could aim a rifle at another animal though.

[Vigile]

Just gotta say, after reading, overhearing abortion debates over the past 30 or more years, this thread is by far the most enlightened discussion I've ever read/heard on the subject. Kudos everyone.

[Ouroboros]

Just gotta say, after reading, overhearing abortion debates over the past 30 or more years, this thread is by far the most enlightened discussion I've ever read/heard on the subject. Kudos everyone.

Very true. Maybe "baby" Ex-Christian.net finally grew up?

[AlphaToOmega]

I hunt because its less pain and misery to the animals and because its healthier.

 

Ha! I applaud your logic here. It gives me something to think about. I killed a deer when I was 18 and looking into its eyes, which were full of fear, before it died, caused me to never hunt since. No doubt you're right that it's more humane. That event had such an impact on me though, I'm still not sure I could aim a rifle at another animal though.

 

I've been hunting over 32 years now.

I was taught to shoot before i was ever allowed to point a rifle at a living creature.

That meant trajectory, windage lead and kill zones and humane shooting.

 

Unfortunately that is not how most people are taught.

Deer for example is one of the last things I'd teach someone to kill.

They are flighty, tenacious and carry a high emotional burden even if killed instantly.

 

The trick with hunting is stalking. Tracking is a double edged art. People think hunting is about tracking an animal after its been shot. This is only true in bow hunting.

A good tracker with a rifle stops tracking after the trigger is squeezed.

Anyone bragging about how good they are at tracking game once shot is simply telling you they don't know how to shoot.

 

Stalking gets you close. Close enough to take a humane shot. If you can't take a humane shot then you don't take it.

Many people are never taught what a humane shot is. They are instead taught what a kill zone is. While this is a start its not the end.

A humane shot will take out the animal instantly.

There are basically two humane shots available for a rifle. The head shot and the neck shot.

The head shot is placed into the brain cavity.

The neck shot is placed at the base of the skull and the neck.

All other shots result in diminishing levels of efficiency and increasing levels of pain/fear.

A bow is different. With a bow you need either a neck or heart/lung shot with the right tips and poundage bow.

The heart.lung is the preferable of the two.

 

When you perform a humane kill with a rifle there is no tracking. It will drop where it is pretty much motionless.

With a bow you may have to track. Its still humane believe it or not because a well placed arrow will kill an animal and not have it even realise its been hit.

A deer for example may still continue to feed even though its been hit through the heart. It will simply drop when the blood supply fails to get to the brain.

Sometimes they get spooked by the noise but they still have no clue they are hit if done right. they can run up to about 200yards with the heart being hit.

The trick is to hit the heart where the main arteries are entering the heart. This results in the fastest loss of blood pressure and hence unconsciousness to the animal.

This requires great skill with the bow and with anatomy.

 

Any of these types of hunting will bring either zero or near zero stress to the animal but they require practice well before the hunt itself.

 

I'll direct my wife to this thread since she was certainly no hunter when we met and now is.

She can describe things better with regard to having to cope with your actions than I can as its far more recent an experience for her.

 

Even in the worst cases, which will happen as animals are not stationary targets, a well trained hunter can kill an animal far more quickly and painlessly than the typical abattoir.

And in almost all cases the animals have had a better life.

 

If you can't stomach this but want cruelty free meat, get Kosher meat.

The ritual in killing an animal may seem bizarre but it is actually very humane.

[Vigile]

Unfortunately that is not how most people are taught.

 

That's how I was raised too. I was born and raised in Idaho (google it) and come from a long line of hunters. In fact, my dad's uncle was a trapper who lived off the land in Montana in a cabin in the mountains and my father killed a moose when he was only 12. I still own three guns of my own and we probably have 20 or 30 between my father, brother and I. I was taught to shoot when I was 6 and was given my first gun when I was 8. I'm a pretty empathetic person though. The meat in the grocery isle didn't look me in the eye.

 

If you can't stomach this but want cruelty free meat, get Kosher meat.

 

I live in Russia.

[ScifiChick]

I'd be happy to discuss hunting if someone wants to, but I think we should start another thread rather than continue to derail this one.

[AlphaToOmega]

Well, we could ask Ouroboros nicely to break up the thread from where I derailed it!

[AlphaToOmega]

Unfortunately that is not how most people are taught.

 

That's how I was raised too. I was born and raised in Idaho (google it) and come from a long line of hunters. In fact, my dad's uncle was a trapper who lived off the land in Montana in a cabin in the mountains and my father killed a moose when he was only 12. I still own three guns of my own and we probably have 20 or 30 between my father, brother and I. I was taught to shoot when I was 6 and was given my first gun when I was 8. I'm a pretty empathetic person though. The meat in the grocery isle didn't look me in the eye.

 

Ah, well then I don't need to tell you about hunting then LOL

Sometimes I wish they would still have the heads on display but they worked out early that it puts people off.

Already kids and adults some adults can't associate supermarket meat with a once living being.

 

 

If you can't stomach this but want cruelty free meat' date=' get Kosher meat.[/quote']

 

I live in Russia.

 

Get to know some Jews

I'm sure there are still some there.

 

 

 

 

[Phanta]

Just gotta say, after reading, overhearing abortion debates over the past 30 or more years, this thread is by far the most enlightened discussion I've ever read/heard on the subject. Kudos everyone.

 

Yeah. It's hard to get diversity and thoughtfulness on this topic in one place. Well done.

 

Phanta

[SilentLoner]

I hunt because its less pain and misery to the animals and because its healthier.

 

Ha! I applaud your logic here. It gives me something to think about. I killed a deer when I was 18 and looking into its eyes, which were full of fear, before it died, caused me to never hunt since. No doubt you're right that it's more humane. That event had such an impact on me though, I'm still not sure I could aim a rifle at another animal though.

 

I've been hunting over 32 years now.

I was taught to shoot before i was ever allowed to point a rifle at a living creature.

That meant trajectory, windage lead and kill zones and humane shooting.

 

Unfortunately that is not how most people are taught.

Deer for example is one of the last things I'd teach someone to kill.

They are flighty, tenacious and carry a high emotional burden even if killed instantly.

 

The trick with hunting is stalking. Tracking is a double edged art. People think hunting is about tracking an animal after its been shot. This is only true in bow hunting.

A good tracker with a rifle stops tracking after the trigger is squeezed.

Anyone bragging about how good they are at tracking game once shot is simply telling you they don't know how to shoot.

 

Stalking gets you close. Close enough to take a humane shot. If you can't take a humane shot then you don't take it.

Many people are never taught what a humane shot is. They are instead taught what a kill zone is. While this is a start its not the end.

A humane shot will take out the animal instantly.

There are basically two humane shots available for a rifle. The head shot and the neck shot.

The head shot is placed into the brain cavity.

The neck shot is placed at the base of the skull and the neck.

All other shots result in diminishing levels of efficiency and increasing levels of pain/fear.

A bow is different. With a bow you need either a neck or heart/lung shot with the right tips and poundage bow.

The heart.lung is the preferable of the two.

 

When you perform a humane kill with a rifle there is no tracking. It will drop where it is pretty much motionless.

With a bow you may have to track. Its still humane believe it or not because a well placed arrow will kill an animal and not have it even realise its been hit.

A deer for example may still continue to feed even though its been hit through the heart. It will simply drop when the blood supply fails to get to the brain.

Sometimes they get spooked by the noise but they still have no clue they are hit if done right. they can run up to about 200yards with the heart being hit.

The trick is to hit the heart where the main arteries are entering the heart. This results in the fastest loss of blood pressure and hence unconsciousness to the animal.

This requires great skill with the bow and with anatomy.

 

Any of these types of hunting will bring either zero or near zero stress to the animal but they require practice well before the hunt itself.

 

I'll direct my wife to this thread since she was certainly no hunter when we met and now is.

She can describe things better with regard to having to cope with your actions than I can as its far more recent an experience for her.

 

Even in the worst cases, which will happen as animals are not stationary targets, a well trained hunter can kill an animal far more quickly and painlessly than the typical abattoir.

And in almost all cases the animals have had a better life.

 

If you can't stomach this but want cruelty free meat, get Kosher meat.

The ritual in killing an animal may seem bizarre but it is actually very humane.

 

You put it very well. I've never had the opportunity to really hunt (my uncle took me hunting with him once but we didn't come across anything). Could I hunt my own food and prepare it? Don't know. I'm sure I could learn though.

 

I've never taken issue with hunting for food (for fun is another matter).

[Vigile]

Sometimes I wish they would still have the heads on display but they worked out early that it puts people off.

 

They do in the Russian markets (not supermarkets though). I suppose the Central Asians must use them for something.

[Vigile]

Sometimes I wish they would still have the heads on display but they worked out early that it puts people off.

 

They do in the Russian markets (not supermarkets though). I suppose the Central Asians must use them for something.

 

They also keep the feet on the rabbits so that customers know they aren't being sold cat.

 

Get to know some Jews

I'm sure there are still some there.

 

There are, but I'm unaware of any synagogues or practicing jews. Not saying there are none, but I've never seen any. Fortunately, not much of any religion is practiced in Russia. You see a few muslims with their heads covered, but that's about it other than a few grandmas who go to church and light candles.

[ScifiChick]

 

I've never taken issue with hunting for food (for fun is another matter).

 

Yup. The only thing fun about hunting is the company.

 

My husband brought up my experience, and I thought about starting another thread, but since we have two abortion threads at the moment, I'll just continue the derail of this one.

 

When I got married, five and a half short years ago, I thought I'd never be able to shoot an animal. I had no issue with my husband doing it, but I was raised on Bambi and the like, and I just didn't think I would be able to do it. He wasn't interested in getting me to do it. He was just happy that I didn't judge him for doing it.

 

He hunts on a farmer's property about twice a year, and he's been doing it on this particular property for upwards of fifteen to twenty years, so he's gotten to know the farmer and his family rather well, and he wanted to introduce me to them . So I agreed to go on one of his trips. I was going to stay at the camp and not participate.

 

That's exactly what I did... the first time. But much like the questions about my Christianity crept up on me, I found myself feeling like a hypocrite for eating meat but not being willing to kill it. I didn't think I could kill it, but I thought I should go out with him one night and witness it.

 

So that is what I did. I took a bottle of Slivovitz and every time he or one of our other friends shot a rabbit, I took a shot. It happened to be a night in which we came across a lot of rabbits, so I was quite drunk by the end of this, but it kept me from crying, and since I didn't want to bring the guys down, I was okay with that. Plus, I never get a hangover from Slivovitz, much like Vodka.

 

The trip ended and we went home, but my crisis of conscience continued. I honestly don't expect all or even anyone to take the same path I have taken, but I became increasingly convinced that I could not continue to eat meat in good conscience if I wasn't willing to take responsibility for the death. Luckily, I'm married to a man who believes in minimizing the suffering as much as possible.

 

I told my husband how I felt, and I told him that I wanted him to teach me to shoot, because if I was going to start shooting Thumper, I wanted it to be head shots so the suffering would be minimized. He actually tried to talk me out of it. He didn't want me to do anything just to make him happy. I finally convinced him, and so he bought me a .22 rifle and taught me to shoot.

 

We took a trip on our own without our other friends, and I started shooting rabbits. It was hard, but rabbits are feral in Australia and what they've done to the Australian landscape is also hard. I realized that this is just the kind of world we live in, and I really believe on a rational level that I'm doing the right thing.

 

The time I spend with my friends and husband is fun. I'm really lucky to be in a group of men who don't take pleasure in the taking of a life or the suffering of an animal. And now, I feel way better about eating animals we've hunted than I do about eating ones that were farmed.

 

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

And she's a crack shot too.