Some Views on the Rights of Animals and the Yet Unborn

When Does Human Life Begin?  What sort of evidence should people require in order to determine when human life begins?  I think this is a very difficult question to answer.  What sort of evidence exists that gives us insights into when human life begins? It is particularly distressing to me that people who claim to be scientific and base their opinions on science do not seem to be trying to develop experiments or gather evidence to help them determine when human life begins.  What evidence do most actually give that supports "scientific" claims about when life begins?  This seems particularly disturbing because so many who claim to know when life begins do it ensconced in their aura of "scientificness".  It also seems most of these people claim that they have apparently used science to determine when human life begins and we should all trust them that their experiments are done only to improve the health of all humankind. I am also at least as distressed by legal system authorities, such as judges, who seem unwilling to acknowledge their own limitations with respect to such issues.  I am not certain what I really understand to be their motives, but you would think that people that express such pure motives for reaching certain conclusions wouldn't hesitate to engage in open and honest investigation.  And since they seem to expect everyone else to be honest about their own limitations, particularly when following a judges edicts, it seems they should be the best qualified to demonstrate to the rest of us how to be self discerning about one's own limitations. But, for some strange reasons, it seems that very very few in either of these groups that claim to base their opinions on evidence provide evidence for their conclusions that comes close to what they would expect others to provide that disagree with their views. While I definitely understand that many people feel they can confidently dismiss the claims of many religions about when life begins, I am still disturbed that they don't seem to have really put forward their own evidence about the issue. Why can some people confidently dismiss many religious claims?  So I digress for a bit.  For example, while the Bible is only one of the world's major religious books, is the Bible a book that can be interpreted as science?  Consider this, in the first book of Kings, chapter 7 verse 23 there is a statement that says that the ratio of the circumference of a well/tank to its diameter is three.  Well, if someone actually tried to build even basic things like spoked wheels based on an exact interpretation of the Bible they'd find themselves without wagons and a lot of other things.  Modern engineering would have never developed in the west.  In particular, over the centuries many Christian armies would have been confined to their own lands and not been so capable of invasion and/or spreading particular views while relying so much on militaristic methods.  On the other hand, nor would they have been able to put up any sort of defense against invaders. My general skepticism about "religious" motivations gives me tendencies to believe some historians who claim wars have even been fought  over such biblical references and interpretations. Possibly another example, I was brought up being told that masturbation was bad because sperm were somehow living in some greater sense of the word.  Some authorities even claimed they were little human beings.  Well, it is true that there does just seem to seem to be more and more of it and you never really know when it will let itself loose on the world, particularly during sleep.  Though, I am very inclined to not see each sperm as being associated with a unique human existence for many reason, experience and evidence.  But, I have heard that this was a religious doctrine at some periods in the past.   Maybe it still is! I'm sure we can all think of other examples where religious bureaucracies have worked hard to interfere in the investigation and dissemination of truth. So when does human life begin?  What sort of evidence should influence the conclusion? What if someone who has developed so that their spirit often shows, has demonstrated more than a few times that fetuses/unborns in the womb of their mothers draw just like other people that have spirits that are developed enough to draw?  What if at the moment of conception it could be demonstrated that a living spirit unites with even something as simple as an embryo?  Maybe this has been demonstrated. How would anyone know?  The drawing by an unborn has happened quite often. I have had an experience with others that was quite show at the moments of conception.  Though this has happened only twice when I was visiting a resort area where newlyweds frequent. So maybe the presence of a spirit doesn't really determine that a human being is living?  Well, I can think of a lot of experiments that give demonstrations/evidence to the contrary that shouldn't be done due to their cruelty to the subjects/participants.  For example, I propose that I be allowed to attend a convention of scientists.  I know that more realistically, as a non-existent being who has apparently done nothing of merit or interest to truth seekers, I would probably have to sneak in.  But anyway, I propose that each day the scientists randomly choose someone for whom I will separate their spirit from their body.  I think it is important that they do the choosing in case I am using my non-existent abilities to select someone that will react purely through the power of suggestion or something else conveniently explanatory.  Well, if it unfortunately results in their death I suspect I will be free from conviction because I am sure I will have no problem finding plenty of not so cheap expert witnesses who will profess that no such association between life and the spirit exists and that I have no such  spiritually related abilities. I can think of some other less forbidding "experiments" that people who are interested in truth and life should find important.  I think it is always important when proposing to experiment with other forms of life,  particularly if they seem unknowable,  or their true nature cannot be readily discerned,  or maybe they can't defend themselves from the experimentation,  or maybe they are just plain uncommunicative, to respect and understand their form of life as much as possible and design experiments that do not take too much advantage. How Does This Relate to Abortion?  I really do think it is very difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a perfect set of laws or rules about when abortions are acceptable/unacceptable.   For example, quite a few years ago, one of my sisters was very nearly dying during her pregnancy from undiagnosable reasons.  It seemed that her pregnancy was very much tied up in her difficulties.  Fortunately, she and her baby both made it through.  But they were very very close to performing an abortion. In my healing assistance efforts I have worked with some women who have become pregnant from a rape.  Some chose to have the baby and have others adopt it, some didn't. These sorts of situational complexities can go on and on.  For example, what sorts of precautions to prevent pregnancy are morally acceptable? Ugh!  I set pretty high standards for myself: such as not engaging in sexual intercourse outside of situations where I am prepared to nurture and care for who may turn out to be the consequences of my actions making as well certain as I can that I am not transmitting communicable diseases and so on relating to other issues such as mutual respect and caring and on and on But what can I really expect from others? But it seems that in most situations we have "healthy" people that are electing to have sexual intercourse without taking intelligent precautions.  Is it acceptable to use abortions as an after the obviously stupid effort for birth control?  I have real problems with people who are not willing to accept much more responsibility for the consequences of their own actions regardless of whether one believes they are terminating another's life.  I think that societies cannot fail to strongly discourage such approaches to pleasure. Though, one might wonder whether these people aren't actually making the ultimate statement about how they perceive their own parenting skills.  Maybe the unborn is really better off dead?  Sorry, for the rather vicious mouthiness, but unfortunately, I'd say they give some pretty solid evidence for this. Karma?  What is the karma for people who are so willing to engage in so many different types of experiments regardless of whether they really can know when life begins? Who can really know? But one might expect that the only way they might have basic changes in their sentiments would be to become the used and discarded fetuses and/or zygotes and/or possibly whomevers in their future efforts at being incarnated? So many people seem to feel/think they are certain that these unborns aren't living.  Apparently, they know for certain what these unborn, at every stage, actually experience.  I guess that means they feel/think they have nothing to fear from the possibility of coming back as someone else's experiment? Why be involved in such things?

This page is constantly under construction

Send e-mail to zai@zaparch.net