Disney Duster wrote:Perhaps the definition if life differs. But the definition of death is when the heart stops. When you stop the fetuses heart you are killing it and since the fetus is human DNA with a body, heart, and brain it's a human life and is being killed. A siamese twin must depend on the other to survive, yet killing one of them would be considered murder.
The definition of death is NOT when the heart stops. The definition of death is when you cease to be alive. For some organisms, once the hearts stops you may die (but not necessarily), but as yamiiguy already pointed out, some organisms don't even have hearts to begin with, so this argument of "death = heart stop" shouldn't be considered valid.
Disney Duster wrote:Heartless wrote:One could argue that killing other animals is just as much of 'murder' as killing human beings. And also, just because something is illegal (as deemed by the government), it is automatically immoral? I wholeheartedly disagree. Personally, morality isn't something that can be universally determined anyways.
Killing a human is apparently 'morally wrong' to the majority of the world, while killing other living beings - plants, insects, cows, fish, etc... - isn't a big deal at all. That's what I find so astonishing about this. We put ourselves in front of every other living being in the world for our own selfish gain, and thats ok with everyone. You kill a bug (who is atleast more alive than a fetus in the first months) and don't even think about it. You remove a sack of cells and it's deemed murder simply because they hold human DNA..
I saw a nice comparison a couple days ago on this subject. A fetus cannot live on its own - the source referred to it as a 'parasite.' Of course the child is alive, but before the actual birth of the child, there is only one living being there (the mother's). To quote: "Saying a fetus is a distinct living being is like saying my arm is a distinct living being. My arm is alive, yes, but you can’t murder my arm."
I thought that was interesting. :shrugs:
The reason killing humans is so bad is if it's human killing humans, killing your own species. And because if you have an animal and a human both in a fire you all know you should save the human first if you can.
As for the arm comparison...the arm doesn't have a brain or beating heart, does it? No. It is no comparison.
Who cares what species it is your killing, you are still
killing. Why should we all know that humans should always come first? Its a general belief by humans that humans are superior creatures, that's why. Super Aurora is right in saying that the human race is a disgustingly selfish group of organisms.
You know, humans are the only creatures that ever, EVER, kill something unnecessarily. You put an anaconda in a herd of antelope and its not going to just start killing them all off one by one. It will feed off of them as it sees fit for survival. But humans raise and create millions animals for the sole purpose of killing them. Forget the fact that
you believe humans are the greatest beings on the planet, and how is this any better than removing a fetus from the womb?
And also, as we've pointed out already, having a heart or brain
does not mean something is alive or not.
Disney Duster wrote:No it's immoral to kill human life and if there's a human body with a heart and brain that is human life. The sperm and ova do not have a heart and brain.
In your opinion, its immoral. I already said that morality is subjective. You only believe killing human life is "immoral" because of your religion and the majority of society thinks the same way. And you see no problems with killing off other organisms because the general public does not either.