Health

Rant

Wanda wants to know: What constitutes a human life ?

Posted 36 months ago|7 comments|840 views
A human's first home.
Written by
Dwayne Johnson
This question has been asked by humans through out the ages. In modern history the nascent American democracy declared that it was possible for some people to be partially human and it took advantage of this belief to create the most profitable slave breading program of that period. While closer to our time in history the Nazi party in Germany reaffirmed this belief about a broader segment of society and proceeded to execute its plans to eliminate these supposed inferior humans one class at a time. It has advocates and followers whom still exist to this day in one manner or another. But even more recently in history the idea that there are people that are not exactly human continues to be perpetuated by institutions such as the New Black Panther party and The Nation of Islam via its most vocal advocate its minister Louis Farrakhan.

What do all of these have in common? They insist on denying the right to life liberty and property to people whom otherwise could have all three without the assistance or intervention of anybody else. So what could be worst than this? It is denying life, liberty and property to those whom are dependent on others. Let me paint for you a picture. Imagine your new born baby being torn from your hands and being murdered at the direct order of her other parent because according to that person she would not be able to contribute positively to society. Imagine that! Or imagine that you could at little or no cost to your self dispatch your elderly, wheelchair bound parents into a premature grave. Imagine that.

Now imagine that inside your home is the person whom one day will cure cancer or one day will terra-form the moons of Jupiter and Saturn except that he is unable to live outside your home for nine months. You invited him to live there but now realize that it was a mistake. Imagine evicting him from your home and watching him die on your porch. Imagine that. Is the new born baby human enough to deserve its life? What about your elderly parents? Are they human enough to deserve their lives? What about the Intellectual tenants that must live in your home for 9 months, are they human enough to deserve their lives?

These seem like utterly preposterous questions to ask, don't they? They do because anybody with half a brain knows that it is immoral for an intelligent society to euthanize its babies, elderly or its handicapped. To do so would reduce us to the level of base animals whose instincts to preserve their own kind has failed them. But today that is exactly what is happening everyday. Young men and women are told that it is okay to dispose of their unborn children. They are taught to distinguish sex from reproduction and are encouraged to do the first with no consequence of the latter, treating the purpose of sex, pregnancy, as an inconsequential byproduct. So what then, if not an unborn child constitute a human life? If we can rip a developing baby from it's first most natural home then what is to say we can't do the same of a newborn or a toddler, tween or teen? The handicapped and the elderly are also therefore at risk. This question will be asked because it needs an answer. So what will you answer to the question what constitutes a human life?
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
The Cypress Gang
The Cypress Gang
36 months ago: Kinda like baking a cake? You first have to knowingly mix the exact ingredients and then have to cook (incubate) it until it is finished. What happens if during the cooking process you decide your no longer hungry? Do you yank it from the oven and throw it away? Remember, you knowingly mixed the ingredients and placed them in the oven.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
36 months ago: I asked this question because at the heart of why a baby can be aborted from its first home sit's the argument from abortionist that it is not a human being because it can not exist outside of its home (It's mothers womb) and if they are right then there are many other people who also might not be classified as humans because they to could not exist outside of a supportive environment.

The Elderly, The Mentally Handicapped, People with compromised Immune systems, Minors are all examples of this. Should we then abort all of these? Should we steal there lives from under them because they help outside themselves? If we can't bring ourselves to do this then we shouldn't kill a baby in it's first home either. It is that simple.
The Cypress Gang
The Cypress Gang
36 months ago: Right ! Smokie.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
36 months ago: Wanda says: The facts are there sugar. You can either believe them or not, but it don't change them no how. You know that all to well honey, no need playing smoke and mirrors now.
The Cypress Gang
The Cypress Gang
36 months ago: Right ! Smokie.
jickay
jickay
Canada
35 months ago: You said this:
it is immoral for an intelligent society to euthanize its babies, elderly or its handicapped

It's funny to me that you use the word euthanize rather than murder like most pro-lifers. If anything a lot of people who are paralyzed or old and ill want to be euthanized, but they aren't given the option to because it is illegal or their right to decide is taken away from them. The question isn't really about defining or protecting life, but rather when it is justifiable to take a life.

For example, in war shooting others is acceptable. So is it in self defense. If you were being raped and you killed the rapist by accident or on purpose it was protective. At the same time it prevents others from possibly being harmed in the future.

This isn't my entire argument (because I can't fit it in here), but isn't it good to protect a child from having a terrible future? If a mother is single, poor, a drug addict, and homeless but pregnant, wouldn't it be better for that embryo to be aborted? Or would you rather have a 'crack baby' that will die anyway? I'm curious to know what you would do in that situation.

Not everything is crystal clean. Not every choice is the right one nor is it the wrong one. It is only right or wrong within the situation in which the decision must be made. Neither pro-life or pro-choice is right, but neither are they wrong.
33 months ago: Taking the analogy built in this argument, what if the "person inside your home for the next 9 months" was forced on you through no choice or option of your own.

Are you now obliged to 'house' that individual for the next 9 months? If the answer is yes, you just said that rapists can now impose reproduction on women. If that is the case, let's back into the argument about slavery.

If the answer is no, then haven't you created a state of conditional humanity, just as the Nazis and the slave traders did? How can you explain that the child is unconditionally human and entitled to all the attendant rights to protection and care UNLESS it was conceived from a rape. An act that the child has no control over.

We are right back where we started (are now) applying arbitrary tests to determine the inherent humanity if a potential human being.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.