quote:
Those were 2 very good but very tough questions and I've probably not really answered either one of them sufficiently for you.
I appreciate the honesty and sincerity with which you answered the questions. I hope that this appreciation isn't lost in my reply.
Just a quick note on the topic of sex education:
I was taught in public school. I graduated high school less than ten years ago. The education I got from my sex ed classes is not accurately described as you have described it. It probably varies from school to school. However, the fact of the matter is that when I was faced with the prospect of having sex I was informed. Not encouraged. I knew that abstinence was the only fulproof birth control method, I knew the potential consequences of my actions, etc. etc. These classes led me to make better decisions because they simply presented information to me. An anectode, it proves nothing, but I just wanted to note that I don't agree with your characterization of sexual education in the classroom.
Back to scene:
quote:
My arguement lies in the act of trying to judge one act - abortion as good in some cases but the similiar act of euthenizing as bad in all cases. Either embrace all human life as sacred or cut loose with the concept and focus on the good of society as a whole and de-emphasize the rights of individual life just like the ants and monarch butterflies. I can't understand why that's so hard if we are only evolved forms of these common life forms with a few million years of DNA trial and error the only separating factor.
If all human life is sacred then:
Can we execute people for heinous crimes?
Can we ever ever ever under any circumstances instigate a potentially fatal struggle or even fight back with the intent to kill other people if someone else should attack us?
and closer to home: If a mother (who is unquestionably human) finds her life in danger from a growing collection of cells in her uterus that, assuming they survive the developmental process, will also be unquestionably human... which is more sacred?
Secondly, I disagree with what you've hinted at here and said more explicitly elsewhere in this thread. Accepting that humans are a makeup of molecules and DNA without a soul does not mean that they're no longer special, or that there is no purpose to feelings or emotion or that there is no value in preserving someone who seemingly contributes nothing to society. It does not imply that we immediately proceed to sacrifice those who we feel are a drain on our societies because it is the most logical course of action. Of the many things that humans have developed over time is an advanced social structure whose rules and order defy logic and sense and reasoning many times over. To reject the sacredness of life is not to reject the specialness of life. And rejecting sacredness in favor of an informed awareness of how special it is leads one to make better, more informed decisions when one has to decide whether or not to euthanize their mother who is no longer able to feel anything but excruciating pain while hooked up to a machine without which she couldn't live OR destroy a collection of cells that if left unchecked will develop into a human being whose responsibility will fall on your own unready shoulders.
™ Version 4.2
