lemmingllama Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 So if it is wrong to kill people, then isnt it also wrong not to create people? Killing people is snuffing out their life, meaning that they cant interact with others. Its like taking a piece out of a puzzle. So doesnt that mean that by not creating people, you are doing the same thing? If you had babies, then they would interact with others and be that certain puzzle piece. Without being created is like just leaving an empty hole where a piece could go since it never came with the puzzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shyguysteve Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 assuming the world can be explained in such completeness by being incomplete with missing or empty spaces then your post is just explaining the process of that understanding.If your trying to say that death or murder is necessary then I agree with you.You could be stating something different, to which I didn't quiet understand your post then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katongo Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 If i understand the question correctly then it depends, we may create life but that depends if it can survive long enough to become a piece of the puzzle and then again some people who are capable of creating life MAY be at a disadvantage if there is a risk in them LOSING THERE LIFE. So it would be like making a piece while taking a piece away, But in the case of those who are well enough then it can be in a sense has a failure to create one can be taken has taking away one's life. And also one has to look at whether there are capable of sustaining one's life long enough for it to live it's on life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaNzCo Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 The main thing I disagree with is the "Killing people is wrong" part. I am no murderer, I just think that the birth and death cycle should not be associated with murder, and instead be associated with natural death. If a person is killed, there is a possibility of immoral actions taking place, just like the prevention of childbirth by means of a forced abortion or some other overly drastic measure. The choice to create life should be as a free from moral judgement as possible, just like death should be. Maybe a similarity to choosing not to create life could be committing suicide, since you are not allowing life to continue in both circumstances to an extent. I personally don't see anything wrong with suicide, since it is your life and you can end it if you want... and I have no problem with people not wanting to have children for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alegend1994 Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 The thing with that example is that if someone has interacted with other people then killed then you can say that they are a puzzle piece that has been removed from their rightful place but the idea of not creating a life means that the life that may have been created hasn't interacted with anyone so the puzzle hasn't noticed the difference since no puzzle piece has been added. So from a first person's view, or a person representing a puzzle piece, nothing has changed since nothing has been added or removed. Like with the saying 'If a trees falls but there is no-one around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?' since the life was never acknowledged by the other puzzle pieces we don't know whether it should have interacted with them or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronScythe Posted December 18, 2011 Report Share Posted December 18, 2011 To kill, is to end an aware life.What you seem to be on about is abortion, something which people always go completely black and white about.One point that I find unarguable except by the idiots - If the brain has not yet developed a consciousness, it is not alive on its own and still just a part of the mother. Religions worldwide state consciousness, our mind, as the spark of life.So until that spark is created, the lump of flesh is still equivalent to the period blood it would have been otherwise.Most researchers agree that the rough time of this spark is 29-30 weeks in, when thalamus connections are being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaNzCo Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 I don't mind being an idiot for a moment. Say you knock some girl up, and you don't wanna be a dad. She insists on keeping it, but you push her down some steps and the lump of flesh is lost. Did you kill it? The only thing for certain is that you prevented it from living, against the will of someone else. Even if it isn't murder, that is still wrong. To losen the restrictions, an abortion is usually the choice of the Mother... but doesn't the lump of flesh get some say? It may not have a mind, soul, or consious... but every cell in that concoction is desperatly trying to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diabetus boy Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 I believe i agree with AaronScythe, if the fetus or organism itself is not a conscious being, then the being itself could not be considered alive. True the heart may beat, and the lungs may breathe, but if there is no brain activity in that equation, then those are just autonomous tasks that the body does without the use of the brain. That's like asking whether or not someone in a slowly declining vegetative state is dead or not, the body it self may be alive, but from what i believe the soul or the anima has already left the hollow shell and passed on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.