When Life Begins

Since Raj has stated in class now about three different times that the point at which life begins is scientifically unknown, and since class discussion cascades into discussion about abortion pretty regularly, I thought I'd create a discussion topic here specifically for this: when human life begins.

Keep in mind that "When does personhood begin?" is an entirely different argument.

Most likely, you hold one of two views:

• View A: It is unknown when human life begins. It is a moral, philosophical, subjective opinion of yours exactly when it begins.



• View B: Human life begins at [insert conception or point in development here].
  

Now that we've got that out of the way, what if I told you there is scientific proof of when life begins, and that there is a field of science (fetology) particularly knowledgeable about this? I'm going to present to you the scientific research done on the matter so far below, and I want anyone who agrees, disagrees, or wants to talk about it to post here. All opinions are welcome. Please do not post, however, before you observe the following sources:

I found these using Google, typing in "When does life begin?," When does human life begin?" and similar such phrases. I read them over myself before posting.

White Paper. When Does Human Life Begin?

The Facts of When Human Life Begins

Prolife Physicians: When Does Human Life Begin?

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony

Rich Nation

There is no way to make a statement about being a rich nation without sounding like a complete asshole... So I would perfer not to disclose my opinion on this matter...

Obama Random Thoughts.

In class we were talking about President Obama. I was wondering, doesnt it seem as if he is trying to please everyone. He seems that he trying to take us from what we were and cahnge us into something that can not be done over night. I personally think that he has some great high hopes for what we could be, but I believe that he is attempting to get us into something that we as a country isnt ready for. Everyone said they wanted change but now that we have it they dont want to give the little bit to make a huge change. Does America really know what we want? Or do we just think we do, and at that is one man able to make one huge change on his own because of his dreams and because of what they say Americans said that they wanted.

Rich Nation

I wanted to see what everybody's view about the riches of our Nation compared to the rest of the world.

We started talking last night about how rich we are compared to the rest of the world.  I sometimes wonder about this.  When we have so much money that the WTO and the World bank could pay of debts around the world, doesnt there seem to be something wrong.  I guess my blog isnt supposed to be about the WTO or the World bank and their $$$, I really wanted to focus on our personal lives.  We live in such a rich nation that is it so hard for us to even try to look it is as outsiders.  Think about it..just not too long ago Bill Gates visited a rural area in South Africa, it is a very poor village and he went to talk to the villagers.  After he was done talking with one of the ladies he walked out of her hut, but his journalist stayed back and asked the lady, "do you know who was just talking to you?"  The lady replied saying "no."  Then the journalist said, "The man talking to you is the richest man in the world"  The lady looked at the journalist and said, "He is from America, They are all rich over there."  To this lady in South Africa we, who probably average an income of 25,000-60,000, are just as rich as Bill Gates who makes billions of dollars.  

Think about it...How many nations are so rich that they can go into this room that they reserve just for their clothes which it is overwhelmingly full, and say, "I have nothing to wear."

How many nations are out there that in order to feel good about yourself the people, who can afford food, choose not to eat, or too eat soo much only for it to in turn be forced out of them in order to keep there shape.  

How many nations say to their employees, "you have worked so hard for the past year, I am going to give you time off to go have fun, and better yet I will pay you to go have fun."

I have nothing against closets full of clothes, or vacations, I just want all of us to see how wasteful we are sometimes.  Do you think that this affects us in any way?  

Do you think that we steal from our employers?  Lets say that one day you take a 5 min longer paid break.  If you would do that everyday a week for the average 50 weeks a year working time that would add up to be $2,800 per person.  I would like other peoples input on this, I just curious to what you all think about the riches of our nation.

partnering? yes. Policing definitely

I really think we should police these countries. I mean only where the help is needed. I mean yeah other countries don't do the same thing but if we didn't, these countries that do need our help and have needed it, will be in huge trouble. And if we were in a situation where we needed help, we'd want it. And if everyone else had the same outlook that they shouldn't be patrolling, we would also be in a lot of trouble. We save people. So is it better they die because we aren't brave enough or upstanding enough to do something about them. So my only point is we can partner but in the case where people need to be defended, we should police. I mean why can't we? Is there a reason? Are we constantly going to be so north and so south in opinion? I think we can do both.

police and partner

i think we are both. and example of police is trying to stop nuclear weapons. an example of partner is helping the people of iraq.

Contradictions

We are a nation that is perfectly willing to destroy a person's (person being a fetus) life with no idea whether or not this person (fetus) can feel or not, yet we will attack a person (this time an adult) for hurting a dog. We believe that our planet is going up in flames, but the leaders of the idea are flying around in private jets. We demand that someone should help the poor, homeless, and needy, but we kick all of the hobos out of a city when we appoint a new leader. Our founding fathers said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," (The Constitution Of The United States, Amendment II) but we're trying to pass laws against owning guns. If we have freedom of religion, why are Christians afraid to show themselves? If we have freedom of speech, why are the Democrats trying to shut down people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Our own President can't be held accountable for appointing a corrupt cabinet without attacking the people who ask him why. What is going on around here?   

As Police or Partner, What is our role?

As Police or Partner, What is our role?

The situation within the U.S. today is manifesting as a constant state of fluctuation. Nations once taunted as our enemies, are openly being pursued as partners through trade and diplomacy. Vietnam and Libya are two countries coming to mind. Whereas nations once publicly proclaimed allies, the United States is presently waging two wars. Iraq, before the fall of Saddam, and Afghanistan being the principle parties. It is within this inconsistent friend or foe status the question arises: "When utilizing our military within the borders of other nations, is our presence there as a partner or the police?"

Regarding Iraq, a nation invaded by the United States without neither launching an attack against it nor having threatened to do so, is an example of the "Bush Doctrine." The doctrine authorizes the United States to initiate first strikes against other countries considered a menace to our society or national interests. Even now, as our military patrol within the borders of this sovereign nation, the operation has been characterized as one of "policing" with attempts of winning the "hearts and minds" of the populace. With the terms being negotiated between each nation for a U.S. troop withdrawal, our desire to maintain diplomatic, economic, and militaristic partners with Iraq is a profound one.

The issue pertaining to Afghanistan is different in nature. In this scenario, the United States invaded a nation that reportedly hosted the Al-Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden, proclaimed by President Bush to be the mastermind behind the attack on the Twin Towers. Bear in mind, Osama bin Laden was supplied arms by the United States in support of its' Jihad to fight the Soviet Unions' occupation of the country. The Al-Qaida leader, as of this writing, remains at large. In the leadership role of the country is a man supported as well as appointed by the United States, President Hamis Karzai. Because to the country's developing army inability to stabilize the region, our military presence substantiates his presidency as we wage war against terror on Afghanistan's soil. Is this being carried out in the role of Police or Partner? History will have to decide.

In the future, I personally hope whomever resides in the Oval Office prays and ponders long and hard prior to deploying our armed forces in harms way again. And if compelled to do so, specify the task to be accomplished. Few things could be more frustrating for a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman than a mission undefined.

Police or Partner

Personal opinion is that America should just remain nuetral towards most things, it would just make things a lot easier. Though since thats not how it works in the real world I'd say we are the police, people respect us because we are a THREAT. We are the most powerful nation in the world and what we say goes. We have the resources and the man power to destroy other nations, it doesn't really take much to convert a car manufactoring company to a weapons factory.

Nuclear Weapons

The United States has long tried to contain the use of nuclear weapons among other countries.  When refering to other countries, these weapons are refered to as "Weapons of Mass Destruction." When we speak of our own country, we call them "Nuclear Weapons." Which one of these terms portrays a more negative image in our minds?  Because of this, many people in our country feel strongly against other countries possessing nuclear weapons.  

In class, Raj said that the US has defended our ability to possess nuclear weapons by reasoning that we are more rational in our use of these weapons.  Who has decided that we are one of the most rational countries? Ourselves.  Isn't this the same argument brought up in class about the bible validating itself?  How is one country able to determine that they are the most rational?  I do not understand why the US feels the need to control other countries' use of nuclear weapons because we are afraid these weapons will be used against other humans.  Last time I checked, the United States was the only country to EVER use a nuclear weapon against another human being.  Does that really make us rational? Doesn't that make us the biggest threat to the rest of the world because we are the only country who has already resorted to the use of nuclear weapons?

Who Is A Person?

I think a person is someone who is someone who can think and feel. Humans. Touching on what talked about in class, in think someone who is brain dead is not longer a person. My girlfriend's cousin was in a gun accident. He was shot through the head and took out his ability to think as well as his command center. His body would no longer operate without life support making him breathe etc. He was no longer a person, just a body. Now the Terry Schiver (sp?) case isn't my reference. So I won't go into a discussion about that. But on that end, past the point of not being able to make yourself life, you are only a body. A cadaver pretty much. As for immigrants etc, an immigrant is a person. By governmental laws they may have little to no rights. But they are still a person in their own right. They live, breathe, care (maybe not for other people than themselves). Terrorists are people but they are bad people. The government can set the law but they can't decide who is or is not a person. I think the word itself has been used lightly. It's been adapted to mean "legal with rights". My family is going to move to Switzerland, we're still people, we aren't citizens there, but we're people. So in my opinion a person is anyone. Some people, like terrorists don't DESERVE to be people. Constant plotting to kill for the sake of their betterment is no better than an animal. So they don't deserve it. But aside, humans are people. Mentally handicapped are people. They live, breathe and think. That is my opinion of who is a human. 

GLOBALIZATION

The term "globalization" is a powerful, dreaded and revered word. In short, it has come to represent what is most resisted yet direly needed in our country; ie, change. Last year, our two domineering political powers were campaigning for the White House with one trumpeting experience, expertise and mostly staying the course as its reason for being chosen, and the other utilizing technology, youthful enthusiasm and professing a different venue for us to take. In a time of crisis, there is a place for experience to assist in prevailing in troubling moments using thought, foresight and good judgement. However, there is also a place for new ideals and a fresh or different approach to an age old problem. Our country voted, and "Change" emerged the winner. This is neither to say the defeated party possessed few or no noble principles worthy of consideration nor to imply that had it been elected the winner the platform on which it ran would have failed. It is only as my opinion that I say the losing party seemed to constantly shift with its message regarding what would be in the best interests of our country, and an honorable man most known for his character and preferring to operate above the fray, appeared to lower those standards in the pursuit of victory close to resembling "at any cost."

Change, being perpetual, is never easy. It requires courage, the ability in admitting to being wrong and a willingness to be corrected. It challenges us to remove ourselves from our "comfort zone" and to proceed down the road not traveled. Familiarity is replaced with the unknown and cock sureness displace with doubt. Nevertheless, here we are.

In the coming four years under this new administration, our nation, we as a people, and yes, possibly our world, possess an opportunity to unite, bond and work together in changing what may be the wrong attitude, perception and direction we were taking. No longer are we enabled to use the vastness of two separating oceans serving as a natural boundary to either isolate or protect us from harm. Where we may have failed to realize it before; 9-11 was the change all event for that. Our economy, foreign policy and by virtue of the Internet, our very lives have become inter-woven within the fabric of this world. Outside of death or devastation, there is no turning back for us, and "must" now play with the hand we've been dealt. What's your call?

Life v. Death

I completey agree with the idea of lethal injection! It is rediculous that we just allow people with cancer to slowly die, but we consider it "inhumain" to allow our pets to sit there in pain! Why is it that we allow another human to live even though they hurt and want to pass away in a way that is less painful. Is it because we want them to be here with us? Is that because humans are just too selfish to let go? If a person wants to die because they are in so much pain that it has become unbarable even when they are using morphine, is it alright then? I would like an answer to some of these questions because maybe I'm just too narrow minded to understand this.