Abortion Discussion

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course! My point. The anti-choice side doesn't distinguish between human beings, foetuses, embyoes, blastocysts and zygotes.

Something magical happens when a sperm introduces itself to an egg: ensoulment!

Does the pro-choice side distinguish between human beings, foetuses, embyoes, blastocysts and zygotes?

Personally I think that the meeting of a sperm and egg resulting in a new life form is sufficiently 'magical' without any extra mysticism. A mundane sort of magic maybe, but pretty cool all the same.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Does the pro-choice side distinguish between human beings, foetuses, embyoes, blastocysts and zygotes?

Well, the state does, so I'd imagine most pro-choice people do. Human beings get a name, a PSS number and their name in the death column of the national press.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Does the pro-choice side distinguish between human beings, foetuses, embyoes, blastocysts and zygotes?

Personally I think that the meeting of a sperm and egg resulting in a new life form is sufficiently 'magical' without any extra mysticism. A mundane sort of magic maybe, but pretty cool all the same.

Should child benefit be paid from the moment of conception? Should a miscarried foetus be given a pps number and death cert before 24 weeks gestation?

Peregrinus

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course! My point. The anti-choice side doesn't distinguish between human beings, foetuses, embyoes, blastocysts and zygotes.

They all have this in common; they are human, and they are alive.

Which means that pro-choice arguments which rest on any or all of these things not being human, or not being alive (as has repeatedly been asserted in this thread) must fail. If people are to be won to a pro-choice position, credible arguments must be offered.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Should child benefit be paid from the moment of conception? Should a miscarried foetus be given a pps number and death cert before 24 weeks gestation?

I'm sure some expectant mothers would like it if it was. Do you think it isn't paid from the moment of conception because the state doesn't regard the child/foetus/embryo as a human being, or because it would be tremendously difficult to manage a system that pays benefit from the moment of conception?
What benefit would accrue from giving a miscarried foetus a pps number? How would it affect the humanity of the foetus?

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, the state does, so I'd imagine most pro-choice people do. Human beings get a name, a PSS number and their name in the death column of the national press.

I don't think the State is distinguishing human beings in those cases; only residents. The population of the US receives none of the above from the Irish state, yet most people would agree they're pretty much human beings.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure some expectant mothers would like it if it was. Do you think it isn't paid from the moment of conception because the state doesn't regard the child/foetus/embryo as a human being, or because it would be tremendously difficult to manage a system that pays benefit from the moment of conception?
What benefit would accrue from giving a miscarried foetus a pps number? How would it affect the humanity of the foetus?


I don't think the State is distinguishing human beings in those cases; only residents. The population of the US receives none of the above from the Irish state, yet most people would agree they're pretty much human beings.

Some people see their miscarried foetus as a person who deserves state recognition before 24 weeks gestation. The state treats miscarriage after 24 weeks very differently to before 24 weeks. Why do you think that it? Early dating scans are extremely accurate and can date conception to within three days, so it wouldn't be difficult to pay child benefit from conception rather than birth.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think the State is distinguishing human beings in those cases; only residents. The population of the US receives none of the above from the Irish state, yet most people would agree they're pretty much human beings.

What about the residents that are in the residents? Or are they not resident, being human and all that?

Absolam

Yes, some mothers see miscarried children as children. Others don't. Do you think the state doesn't/shouldn't recognise miscarried children?

The state defines miscarriage as prior to 24 weeks gestation, and post 24 weeks it's stillbirth; is that very different treatment? It seems to simply recognise different stages of development?

Since as you say, it's not difficult to accurately date conception, do you think the state is taking a philosophical stance by not paying benefit from conception? Or could there be a more mundane reason for not doing so?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, some mothers see miscarried children as children. Others don't. Do you think the state doesn't/shouldn't recognise miscarried children?

The state defines miscarriage as prior to 24 weeks gestation, and post 24 weeks it's stillbirth; is that very different treatment? It seems to simply recognise different stages of development?

Since as you say, it's not difficult to accurately date conception, do you think the state is taking a philosophical stance by not paying benefit from conception? Or could there be a more mundane reason for not doing so?

I think the state is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It affords constitutional protection to the unborn from the moment of conception but doesn't act that way in reality. Do you think the state should distinguish between born and unborn children? If something magical happens at the moment of conception, is that different to a born child? Is a zygote deserving of the same status as a miscarried foetus 24 weeks later?

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

What about the residents that are in the residents? Or are they not resident, being human and all that?

Do you mean, does the state consider human beings being incubated by residents to be residents? I presume not since they don't get pps numbers until they're born in the country, or arrive by other means post birth? In either case, I don't think not having a pps number defines them as non-human in the eyes of the state.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

I think the state is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It affords constitutional protection to the unborn from the moment of conception but doesn't act that way in reality.

How so? Constitutional protection is afforded, how is it then not provided in reality?

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think the state should distinguish between born and unborn children?

. Of course, since an unborn child has different care requirements from a born child, it would seem sensible to distinguish between the two, just as there is a distinction between neo natal care and the care of say, a teenager, or an adult?

lazygal wrote: »

If something magical happens at the moment of conception, is that different to a born child?

Whoops! When does the state get involved in magical stuff?

lazygal wrote: »

Is a zygote deserving of the same status as a miscarried foetus 24 weeks later?

In what context are you comparing the status of a zygote to a miscarried foetus?

Lingua Franca

There's an article here about a Museum for Contraception and Abortion describing some of the desperate measures women have used to try to avoid pregnancy or abort. Worth bearing in mind for the next person popping in to claim that strumpets abort so they can go on holiday.

Obliq

I am quite loving this woman's beat poem/slam poetry/whatever y'call it. I'll just leave this here:

http://www.upworthy.com/notice-any-contradictions-from-the-pro-life-rally-this-woman-sums-them-up-gorgeously?g=2&c=ufb1

gaynorvader

Peregrinus wrote: »

They all have this in common; they are human, and they are alive.

Which means that pro-choice arguments which rest on any or all of these things not being human, or not being alive (as has repeatedly been asserted in this thread) must fail. If people are to be won to a pro-choice position, credible arguments must be offered.

They might be human, but none of them are a human being.

Absolam

So it's ok to terminate humans, human beings not so much. At what point do we make the transition from human to human being?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

So it's ok to terminate humans, human beings not so much. At what point do we make the transition from human to human being?

It is the pregnancy which is terminated.

Do we have to go through this again?

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

It is the pregnancy which is terminated.

Well, yes. But the way in which it is terminated is by killing the embryo/foetus being carried. So simply observing that a pregnancy is being terminated doesn't mean that there is no ethical issue here.

lazygal wrote: »

Do we have to go through this again?

We do, as long as people try to approach this by adopting particular labels or terminology to decide what is going on, and then deciding that the labels or terminology create their own reality which cannot be denied or argued against.

For example - not to pick on gaynorvader, but it's a recent example in the thread - in post #3385 gaynorvader says that embryos, foetuses, etc may be human "but none of them are a human being". But he offers no argument or justification for the claim, and it's not obviously true. I mean, in order to qualify as a "being" do you have to do anything beyond, well, just be? Gaynorvador obviously thinks so, but he doesn't tell us what further thing "being" requires, and he doesn't acknowledge the possiblity that other people might reasonably hold views on this question which differ from his, and he doesn't offer any arguments as to why his view should be preferred over theirs.

As I say, I don;t want to single out gaynorvader. There are other posters doing the same thing - both pro-life and pro-choice posters.

As long as people argue this way - simply asserting ethical claims but offering no argument in favour of them and no reason why their ethical claims should be preferred over the ethical claims of others - then, yes, we do have to "go through this again". Because the only way these ethical claims are going to be understood and evaluated is if they are challenged, and those who assert them are made to explain and justify them.

My own view, for what it's worth, is that this line of discussion is basically sterile. It's in the nature of ethical claims that their truth cannot be objectively demonstrated. When gaynorvador explains why an embryo is not a "being" and why he thinks that this has the ethical consequence that it can be killed, he will find himself making claims which can be beleived or accepted, but cannot be proven. Consequently he will not be able to show that others ought to share his views, or that he has a right to have his views reflected in law or public policy in preference to the views of others. And exactly the same can be said for those who advance opposing ethical claims. Where does this get us?

Any way forward here has to accept the reality that (a) their are conflicting ethical positions here, and (b) the state has no reason for preferring one ethical position over another, but should afford them all equal respect.

SmilingLurker

The question is when does a foetus become sufficiently sustainable or conscious to be considered human. A cluster of cells albeit with human genetics does not have equal rights as my children or a living breathing human. If the foetus is sustainable outside the womb a doctor will deliver the baby early. Any other decision should be medical and only between the doctor and the mother.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

My own view, for what it's worth, is that this line of discussion is basically sterile.

Any way forward here has to accept the reality that (a) their are conflicting ethical positions here, and (b) the state has no reason for preferring one ethical position over another, but should afford them all equal respect.

I'm with you there Peregrinus.

SmilingLurker wrote: »

The question is when does a foetus become sufficiently sustainable or conscious to be considered human.

I disagree. The question, to me, relates to whether people accept (or not) that it's a valid ethical decision for an adult human to kill a non-sentient (but very much alive) human foetus because bearing the pregnancy, giving birth, and potentially raising the child goes entirely against that adult human's choice.

I consider it to be a reasonable choice to make, but then....I'm not hung up on the whole "sacredness" of human life thing. And if people who were thought it through in a less hypocritical fashion they might do more to help children dying of preventable diseases and be anti-war to the same extreme as they are anti-abortion.

Peregrinus

SmilingLurker wrote: »

The question is when does a foetus become sufficiently sustainable or conscious to be considered human.

Well, hold on. First, of all, the issue is not whether the foetus (or embry) is human. It's unquestionably human; there isn't any doubt about that. Just ask any cellular biologist. The question is whether the foetus as an entity has any claim to our respect or care, such that to seek to kill it becomes immoral or unjustifiable.

Secondly, as to what the appropriate test for that might be, you mention "sustainability" and "consciousness", but you do realise they are two very different things, right? So this is not a very clear test; are you saying that the foetus deserves respect when it is both sustainable and conscious, or when it either of those things? And can you say why those characteristics, rather than others, are the significant ones?

SmilingLurker wrote: »

A cluster of cells albeit with human genetics does not have equal rights as my children or a living breathing human. If the foetus is sustainable outside the womb a doctor will deliver the baby early. Any other decision should be medical and only between the doctor and the mother.

False dichotomy. Your children are a cluster of cells with human genetics. So are you, for that matter.

You mention sustainability again; I think the implication of what you are saying is that, if a foetus has not yet reached the point where it could survive if delivered, then it is not morally objectionable to kill it. If that's not what you're saying, my apologies for misreading you. But, if that is what you're saying, can you say why you make this connection between sustainability outside the womb and a claim to protection in the womb? It's not obviously the case that one follows from the other.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

I disagree. The question, to me, relates to whether people accept (or not) that it's a valid ethical decision for an adult human to kill a non-sentient (but very much alive) human foetus because bearing the pregnancy, giving birth, and potentially raising the child goes entirely against that adult human's choice.

Can I just pick up two things there?

First, you mention the consideration that "potentially raising the child goes entirely against" the woman's choice. Suppose that a child has been carried to term and born alive, but raising it goes against the woman's choice. Can she kill it? Peter Singer would say "yes" but I think most people would say "no". But if that can't justify the killing of a newborn, how can it relevant to an abortion decision? On the other hand, if the prospect of raising a child to adulthood isn't a sufficient burden to justify killing, how can we say that the rather less onerous prospect of carrying a baby to term is sufficient?

Which brings me to second, sentience, which I think may be the answer, or part of the answer, to these queries - the suggestion being that it is easier to justify the killing of a non-sentient entity than the killing of a sentient entity. The problem here is the (SFAIK) sentience is a fairly vague concept. If "sentience" means "response to external stimuli" then there are sentient plants, and it's hard to see that that kind of sentience can have such big moral implications. So I think if we're saying that the non-sentience of the embryo/foetus justifies abortion, we need to be a bit clearer about what exactly we mean by non-sentience, and why it has the moral consquences that we assert for it.

Obliq wrote: »

. . . And if people who were thought it through in a less hypocritical fashion they might do more to help children dying of preventable diseases and be anti-war to the same extreme as they are anti-abortion.

Hear, hear!

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes. But the way in which it is terminated is by killing the embryo/foetus being carried. So simply observing that a pregnancy is being terminated doesn't mean that there is no ethical issue here.


We do, as long as people try to approach this by adopting particular labels or terminology to decide what is going on, and then deciding that the labels or terminology create their own reality which cannot be denied or argued against.

For example - not to pick on gaynorvader, but it's a recent example in the thread - in post #3385 gaynorvader says that embryos, foetuses, etc may be human "but none of them are a human being". But he offers no argument or justification for the claim, and it's not obviously true. I mean, in order to qualify as a "being" do you have to do anything beyond, well, just be? Gaynorvador obviously thinks so, but he doesn't tell us what further thing "being" requires, and he doesn't acknowledge the possiblity that other people might reasonably hold views on this question which differ from his, and he doesn't offer any arguments as to why his view should be preferred over theirs.

As I say, I don;t want to single out gaynorvader. There are other posters doing the same thing - both pro-life and pro-choice posters.

As long as people argue this way - simply asserting ethical claims but offering no argument in favour of them and no reason why their ethical claims should be preferred over the ethical claims of others - then, yes, we do have to "go through this again". Because the only way these ethical claims are going to be understood and evaluated is if they are challenged, and those who assert them are made to explain and justify them.

My own view, for what it's worth, is that this line of discussion is basically sterile. It's in the nature of ethical claims that their truth cannot be objectively demonstrated. When gaynorvador explains why an embryo is not a "being" and why he thinks that this has the ethical consequence that it can be killed, he will find himself making claims which can be beleived or accepted, but cannot be proven. Consequently he will not be able to show that others ought to share his views, or that he has a right to have his views reflected in law or public policy in preference to the views of others. And exactly the same can be said for those who advance opposing ethical claims. Where does this get us?

Any way forward here has to accept the reality that (a) their are conflicting ethical positions here, and (b) the state has no reason for preferring one ethical position over another, but should afford them all equal respect.

Most states already take a position on a foetus... I am not sure about Ireland, but I suspect (possibly wrongly) that it is something similar to the UK. If you look at the Uk definition of murder, it is the unlawful killing of a human in being. Now, I am not sure if human in being differs from human being, but this has been interpreted as a born person. So you can't murder a being that is not born.

I am not trying to equate abortion with murder, simply pointing out that states already take a position on when, in the case of murder, a foetus or embrio become a human being and the rights and privlidges accosiated with that status are bestowed on it.

Personally I think that a limit on abortion of "pre-birth" is a little late, but the point I am trying to make is that states already make ethical calls on when the thing growing in a woman's womb attracts the rights of a human being.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

. . . I am trying to make is that states already make ethical calls on when the thing growing in a woman's womb attracts the rights of a human being.

Not necessarily; they may be taking a stand on a different ethical question, such as the proper role of the state. It's quite possible to take the view that, on the grounds of the right of privacy, the state has no power to intervene in a woman's decision about abortion, regardless of whether her decision is ethical or not. Or they may be attempting to find some compromise between moral principles which are in tension with one another - the woman's right to autonomy, versus the unborn child's right to respect and/or protection. And sometimes such compromises are driven not so much by the high deals of human rights and dignity and the appropriat balance to be struck between them as by more pragmatic considerations, like what is workable and practical.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can I just pick up two things there?

No problem! Under some time pressure tho, so will be brief

First, you mention the consideration that "potentially raising the child goes entirely against" the woman's choice. Suppose that a child has been carried to term and born alive, but raising it goes against the woman's choice. Can she kill it? Peter Singer would say "yes" but I think most people would say "no". But if that can't justify the killing of a newborn, how can it relevant to an abortion decision? On the other hand, if the prospect of raising a child to adulthood isn't a sufficient burden to justify killing, how can we say that the rather less onerous prospect of carrying a baby to term is sufficient?

I would disagree with Singer, but I would say that the possibility of adoption is not always available, so the raising of the child (as you say, the more onerous task) would often factor into a woman's decision - for example where a woman may already have children and not consider herself to be in a position to raise another, and social and family constraints could tie her into keeping the child. While I don't know anyone who could/does justify killing a newborn, I can see where the notion of raising the already born child could inform an abortion decision.

Which brings me to second, sentience, which I think may be the answer, or part of the answer, to these queries - the suggestion being that it is easier to justify the killing of a non-sentient entity than the killing of a sentient entity. The problem here is the (SFAIK) sentience is a fairly vague concept. If "sentience" means "response to external stimuli" then there are sentient plants, and it's hard to see that that kind of sentience can have such big moral implications. So I think if we're saying that the non-sentience of the embryo/foetus justifies abortion, we need to be a bit clearer about what exactly we mean by non-sentience, and why it has the moral consquences that we assert for it.

Again, I agree that sentience is a loose term. My personal take is that before the foetus is fully developed and brain pathways are not fully operational, I would have less ethical difficulty in killing one than I do with killing a fully grown chicken (I know I keep mentioning this, but I'm one of the few people on here who has actually killed a sentient being by choice - even if it isn't human, it's a comparison). At that stage, I don't have any moral issues with abortion at all.

After the stage where a foetus can feel pain and respond to external stimuli (and I don't know what point that is exactly - I'm sure it's a point that people will have difficulty in pinpointing), I believe that ethically abortion should still be available electively when it is a case of either medical/mental health danger to the mother, or a case of TFMR, in which case the utmost care should be taken to ensure a painless death for the foetus.

MrPudding wrote: »

Personally I think that a limit on abortion of "pre-birth" is a little late, but the point I am trying to make is that states already make ethical calls on when the thing growing in a woman's womb attracts the rights of a human being.

MrP

That would be true for me too, except in cases where the "pre-birth" foetus with a fatal abnormality could be saved from having to experience birth by having a pain free death in the womb.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

. . . Again, I agree that sentience is a loose term. My personal take is that before the foetus is fully developed and brain pathways are not fully operational . .

That's about 25 years of age, then?

I think there's a real problem here. There's obviously a huge difference in capacity, function, etc between a living human embryo on the one hand and a mature living human adult on the other, but the path between them really is a continuum. There are, of course, landmarks along the way, of which the most obvious is birth, but that's something that happens to the,um, entity,not something the entity acheives. And it's really difficult to put our fingers on some particular quality that the entity achieves such that we can say, right, this is the characteristic that commands our respect and protection. And my sense is that most of our attempts to do so are attempts to find a rational justification for a moral sense we have about what is acceptable and what is not, rather than attempts to start with a moral principle and arrive at a practical application. That's why we tend to fall back on vaguely defined notions like "sustainability" or "sentience", which either turn out to have no very clear meaning or, if they do, turn out to have a meaning which doesn't, on examination, support the moral sense we are trying to defend.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

So it's ok to terminate humans, human beings not so much. At what point do we make the transition from human to human being?

I would say brain activity.

Peregrinus wrote: »

{...}

For example - not to pick on gaynorvader, but it's a recent example in the thread - in post #3385 gaynorvader says that embryos, foetuses, etc may be human "but none of them are a human being". But he offers no argument or justification for the claim, and it's not obviously true. I mean, in order to qualify as a "being" do you have to do anything beyond, well, just be? Gaynorvador obviously thinks so, but he doesn't tell us what further thing "being" requires, and he doesn't acknowledge the possiblity that other people might reasonably hold views on this question which differ from his, and he doesn't offer any arguments as to why his view should be preferred over theirs.

I have discussed this before on this thread, but accept that it was probably about 100 pages or back, so I'll go through it again. Brain activity is what makes a collection of human cells a human being. It's the only difference between a living being and a body kept alive by life support. I don't understand how a bunch of human cells can be labelled a human being without brain activity. To reiterate what I mentioned quite recently; is a human arm a human being? Human hair? Human heart?

Peregrinus wrote:

As I say, I don;t want to single out gaynorvader. There are other posters doing the same thing - both pro-life and pro-choice posters.

Nah, it was a fair point well made.

Peregrinus wrote:

{...}
My own view, for what it's worth, is that this line of discussion is basically sterile. It's in the nature of ethical claims that their truth cannot be objectively demonstrated. When gaynorvador explains why an embryo is not a "being" and why he thinks that this has the ethical consequence that it can be killed, he will find himself making claims which can be beleived or accepted, but cannot be proven. Consequently he will not be able to show that others ought to share his views, or that he has a right to have his views reflected in law or public policy in preference to the views of others. And exactly the same can be said for those who advance opposing ethical claims. Where does this get us?

Any way forward here has to accept the reality that (a) their are conflicting ethical positions here, and (b) the state has no reason for preferring one ethical position over another, but should afford them all equal respect.

The problem with everyone just accepting that there are differences of opinion is that everyone agrees that killing human beings is wrong. You can't just wave your hands and say "let's all just respect one another's views" on this subject as that's asking people to respect a person's right to murder another person.

What distinguishes a foetus from any other collection of human cells without brain activity?

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's about 25 years of age, then?

I think there's a real problem here. There's obviously a huge difference in capacity, function, etc between a living human embryo on the one hand and a mature living human adult on the other, but the path between them really is a continuum. There are, of course, landmarks along the way, of which the most obvious is birth, but that's something that happens to the,um, entity,not something the entity acheives. And it's really difficult to put our fingers on some particular quality that the entity achieves such that we can say, right, this is the characteristic that commands our respect and protection. And my sense is that most of our attempts to do so are attempts to find a rational justification for a moral sense we have about what is acceptable and what is not, rather than attempts to start with a moral principle and arrive at a practical application. That's why we tend to fall back on vaguely defined notions like "sustainability" or "sentience", which either turn out to have no very clear meaning or, if they do, turn out to have a meaning which doesn't, on examination, support the moral sense we are trying to defend.

Yes, all that. I suppose the vague terms "sentience" or "sustainability" are exactly that - trying to support the morality of one human life taking precedence over the continued existence of another. It is not clear cut enough to say "there should be a cut off point for abortion" and then try to look for one, and as you can see from my post, I (like most people) have trouble balancing my own feelings (that human life is no more sacred than another animal's and also that human life should be protected). Where does one draw a line? Clearly, it is not adequate to say that ALL human life should have equal protection as that is untenable in practicality. I don't even find my own personal cut off points (as outlined earlier) to be workable. No answers from me, I'm afraid, pragmatic though I am about death

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

The problem with everyone just accepting that there are differences of opinion is that everyone agrees that killing human beings is wrong. You can't just wave your hands and say "let's all just respect one another's views" on this subject as that's asking people to respect a person's right to murder another person.

Interestingly though, many many thousands of people participate in murdering humans during (name any) war. How is it we justify killing under those circumstances? (whether involvement is by choice or not). To me, the notion of greater need (such as where war is waged over the certain threat of loss of national autonomy) is enough to bring a country to arms - on the massively smaller scale of a woman's autonomy being taken over by an unwanted presence, how can we not respond to a similar issue of the taking of human life for the greater need of another human life in the same fashion?

I know I'm not putting this well, btw. It's just that I struggle with being human sometimes

Bannasidhe

gaynorvader wrote: »

The problem with everyone just accepting that there are differences of opinion is that everyone agrees that killing human beings is wrong.

Yet, 'we' kill human beings all the time. 'We' kill them in wars and call their 'killers' heroes, often award them medals. Our collective histories extol 'killers' as our 'Great Men'.

'We' kill them through neglect.
'We' kill them with bureaucracy.
'We' kill them in self-defence.
'We' kill them with toxins 'we' let into the environment.
'We' kill them because we just don't like who or what they are...

gaynorvader

Obliq wrote: »

Interestingly though, many many thousands of people participate in murdering humans during (name any) war. How is it we justify killing under those circumstances? (whether involvement is by choice or not). To me, the notion of greater need (such as where war is waged over the certain threat of loss of national autonomy) is enough to bring a country to arms - on the massively smaller scale of a woman's autonomy being taken over by an unwanted presence, how can we not respond to a similar issue of the taking of human life for the greater need of another human life in the same fashion?

I know I'm not putting this well, btw. It's just that I struggle with being human sometimes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet, 'we' kill human beings all the time. 'We' kill them in wars and call their 'killers' heroes, often award them medals. Our collective histories extol 'killers' as our 'Great Men'.

'We' kill them through neglect.
'We' kill them with bureaucracy.
'We' kill them in self-defence.
'We' kill them with toxins 'we' let into the environment.
'We' kill them because we just don't like who or what they are...

I would say that all bar self defence are wrong and make the point that just because something is done, doesn't make it right.