When the right to kill a human is created?
I don't believe in souls. To me, a sixteen-cell blastocyst is just a clump of cells. We kill much more well-developed clumps of cells--mosquitos, for example. I would ask a different question: when does an organism gain the right *not* to be killed?
You dont have to believe in souls to stand up for the right to life.
Noone has the right to kill anything for not a very serious reason.
In some countries, killing for fun is usual, but I think that scientifically is concidered as mental disorder and I am almost sure that you agree with me.
Whats the proper-right-ethical punishment for someone that kills a dog in the street just because he "want to".
If someone kills the embryo without mother's aproval, you would still say that you dont care? Is it the same like saying he cut a hair of her head?!
If a human life is threatened, you can kill anything.
But the best is to avoid the threat.
The perfect (in Orthodox church) is to avoid killing other humans, in every cost. Even this means that the christian will sucrifice his life to protect the killers life. But this is a very high spiritual level and not for everyone. Killing in self defence is forgivable but not blessed.
I would like your answer in my previous comment in order to continue our conversation.
PS: it is very common in the orthodox monasteries not to eat meat to avoid killing an animal. Eatting fish or eggs is permitted in some rare cases. Anyway, this has to do with survivance.
Do you think it is morally acceptable to kill mosquitoes? (There is a reason I ask.)
I answered that already.
The answer is: yes, in some cases.
I also previous said that it can be acceptable (not blessed or proposed) to kill the embryo if it is 100% sure that it will cause the death of the mother. I dont understand why we have to talk about mosquitoes lifes!
Are you going to answer any of my questions or this is an inquisition?!
OK, killing mosquitoes is ethically permissible. So it isn't the fact that abortion kills a living organism that is the problem with it.
Is it ethically permissible to kill a living organism that is no more advanced than a mosquito? Like a sixteen-cell blastocyst?
The permition to kill has nothing to do with the advance but with the nececity of survive.
Are you going to answer any of my question, YES or NO?!
The necessity of survival? You kill mosquitoes because you have to in order to survive? Really?
It isn't clear to me why you're asking about the ethics of killing an embryo/fetus without the mother's approval, since nobody proposes that that should be done. In general, no, I would find it unethical--but in much the same way in which it would be unethical to tie someone down to a table and forcefully cut his hair.
Really! Mosquitoes may threaten your life. Think more. If not why you have to kill them?!
If the mother kills it, you say its not murder, its almost (or exactly) nothing and she can do it, ethicaly. If anyone else kills it, including the father, it is a great crime and law and society protects the life of the embryo. Its not that "someone proposes it", it is that there are people that wants to do it and Law cares about it.
The problem we discuss is not the "tie on a table", it is the killing of a life. I say that embryo is a human life and you say it is the same value of one hair. So whats the punishment if I cut one hair of yours and whats if I remove the embryo of your womb (and whta you think it should be)?!
Where I live, mosquitoes are not generally threats to my life. They're just annoyances. But look, you have to decide when a creature is to be considered worthy of moral protection, and why. Is a frog? Is a fish? Is a bird? Is a steer? Is a monkey? Is an elephant? Is a chimpanzee? Is a dolphin? If any of them isn't worthy of protection from being killed, why is a sixteen-celled human blastocyst worthy of protection from being killed?
As for why it is unethical for anyone else to kill the embryo/fetus against the woman's will: it is not wrong because her opposition magically grants the embryo/fetus the right to life. Rather, it is wrong because it is an invasion of her physical autonomy. It would be wrong to force her to have a haircut if she didn't want one. It would also be wrong to force her to have an abortion if she didn't want one. (The question of whether or not abortion is murder is the primary ethical question. If it is answered in the negative, then we can ask who may make the decision as to whether or not to abort her embryo/fetus, and it seems as though that is the mother's choice, although one may make a case for the father's having equal say. If, on the other hand, we decide that abortion is murder, then the mother's choice makes no difference--abortion simply shouldn't be performed, except in cases of self-defense.)
Mother's choice to bring birth to the embryo..
and then demand maintenance obligation, heritage, State benefits, etc!
Abortion is not a haircut.
When the right to kill a human is created?