Yes. I agree. For me though, the question of weather an embryo has the rite to life also extends, to whether it is rite to withhold medical advancements to the ill and living.
Is it rite to take life, to save or improve life?
At what point do we consider the embryo to posses the quality of life?
Its a many headed monster that has no clearly defined answer.
Should it be answered purely from a moral standpoint? A medical standpoint?
I don't know..
So John,
Put your geek hat on for a minute.
If humans aren't part of the natural order, what are we doing here? We aren't outside the box of nature, we're part of it. We are an overwhelming part of the natural order. We're mamals, we are a species, we reproduce, we affect our environment, we interact with other creatures. The only difference between us and the rest is we're much more capable of fucking things up.
As soon as an egg is fertilised a specific "person" exists. whether or not is develops to have a quality of life is another matter but all the ingredients of that person is there.
This isn't a Catholic rosaries on ovaries stance...I was anti-abortion even as a young agnostic. I do however somehow differentiate between an ex-utero embryo "bred" for it's cells and an embryo "baby" implanted in a uterus although I apreciate you could see this as being illogically emotive.
also I am pro conraception. Even though the potential for conception and life is there it is a generic potential - the fusion of gametes seems to me to be the moment of definition of an individual.
If the balance of nature in Britain is as fragile as you say, the intervention of humans in the fox world is hardly necessary, John. To claim that foxes need to be culled by humans is arrogance of the highest order.
The only difference between us and the rest is we're much more capable of fucking things up.
And thats precisely my point denver. We are different from other species in that we rape this planet for selfish reasons regardless of the effect on other species.
That, denver is not part of any natural order.
I would agree that in this strict cence, the Zygote seems to me to be the moment of life Jude.
What concerns me though, is weather gamete fusion should be considered as the marker for life?
*If the balance of nature in Britain is as fragile as you say, the intervention of humans in the fox world is hardly necessary, John. To claim that foxes need to be culled by humans is arrogance of the highest order*.
Our activities have made it necessary for the welfare and preservation of some species missi. I which it wernt so, but it is.
Everything is made of the same stuff my friend. We all live on the same little rock in space. We're little specks of carbon swirling around in our own feces. We're a species as much a part of the natural order of this planet as anything else. If we were not, we wouldn't exist. Eventually, we'll be extinct and then and only then will we not be a part of the natural order. The natural order will have dictated that we go away.
If you don't understand the concept, I can't explain it any better than that.
Now, having a point of view that it is okay to kill other things for enjoyment and rationalizing it as being for some good, I don't buy it. If you were hungry and needed to eat a fox, then by all means, kill one and start chewing. To kill other creatures for enjoyment, that doesn't set us above anything. It's called respect for life or lack thereof. Fox hunting is bloodsport. It serves no purpose other than killing for enjoyment.
>> ...Our activities have made it necessary for the welfare and preservation of some species... <<
And which species is it that we're 'preserving' by hunting foxes and ripping them to bits with packs of rabid dogs, John? I'm sorry me old mucker, but the only species likely to flourish from this ghastly activity are the dogs and their hounds, both of which would improve the planet by their absence. If you believe the 'natural order' of things will fall into disarray if we let foxes alone I suggest you stop reading your science fiction. You see, the world isn't run on scientific principles you can learn in school, it's more to do with logic and common sense.
even from a Christian view we cannot say Scripture says the zygote is "The beginning" Jeremiah opens saying "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations"
Implying there was comething even before conception...which is confusing.
Many religionists believe the soul pre-exists and somehow a soul is plonked into a particular body after it is conceived which I find a bit hard to swallow as well.
Denver, I re fare you to my original post.
*I don't agree with fox 'Hunting', but do agree that the fox population 'and others', has to be kept under control*.
And thats my argument radio, not weather we all share constitutional atoms, not some high hat point of view that try to distract by complicating straight forward points of view by taking the morow stand point.
The question was pretty straight forward, do you agree or disagree with fox hunting?
I disagree..
But! Fox's do need to be culled for the long term preservation of that species.
Culliing and Fox Hunting? Same thing.???
Is hunting an animal down for sport, terrorizing it and then taking enjoyment at it's demise the only method available for controlling a population? Seems to be very non-cost efficient method of wildlife management.
Wildlife management and hunting have been married, which I suppose is the way things work in the civilized world. We have the same thing here, with dear and elk hunting and everything else. Hell, a whole industry is built around it. The animal populations need to be kept at sustainable levels for the good of the species. I personally love to fish but I do catch and release and if by chance I do keep a fish, I eat it. So, I'm not pristine or above sport neither, I'm no better at the base level. If you're hunting for food, I have no objection. If your hunting for pleasure of killing, then I draw a line.
I will agree in principle that some species of wild animals need population regulation so that they may survive in what little space they have left to do so. I will never, however, personally participate in anything that allows for it to be done purely for enjoyment of chasing it down and killing it.
If humans are never going to evolve with some sense of moral responsibility, then we aren't much better than reptiles.
Having spent two many years and lost to many good friends over this definition Jude, i settled, 'if some What un happily' on my own definition.
I decided that there is no real evidence for the moment of specificity and so began to consider the precursors of biological specificity.
From my limited knowledge of Cell biology, 'un like yours Jude', i was convinced that the question it self..'at what point do we define life and what do we mean by living'? Could not easily be approached from any one disciplines, but had to be tackled from a Multi disciplinary point of vie.
I was young, naive and soon ran in to trouble.
To day, i see no reason why this definition should be restricted to a biological explanation.
Hences, why i became interested in physics..
(Work that one out)?
I think abortion is murder I think blood sports are horrible but I don't impose that on anyone else...partly cos I can't be arsed.
The stem cell embryos...haven't quite worked that one out yet!
I thought that rabbit thing was just rumour? That's horrible if true! And, no, wasn't suggesting hunt dogs :0) So many problems are caused by mankind trying NOT to be part of the natural order - we don't want OUR numbers to be regulated, we don't want to die, we want more than we need, and unlike animals we can get what we want, but in doing so are stretching a very tough fabric and one day it will rip. Apart from pets, most of the creatures that can live alongside us are the ones we consider vermin or parasites as far as I can see.
The spoils of war. We have spoilt the earth trying to subdue nature
We put ourselves so far above animals that an embryo's POTENTIAL to have a life is equal or above an actually living animal's
Am sounding like Stephen
I have to remind my self that no one has a fixed point of vie, 'except perhaps for Stephy d'.
The way i see it, 'no mater which camp you stand in', there are advantages and disadvantages to each alternative.
For me, its a question of which one has the less drastic disadvantages.
You could give it a try Colin, but I doubt the combined efforts of court and king would be sufficient. However I feel I've exhausted my narrow-minded and ill-informed arguments on this topic, so I'll give it a rest anyway.
(Unless I'm provoked further by either ridiculous claims or spurious comments)
Perhaps you have something to add to the debate?
Well, as you can imagine, Lady Tabitha is now in a frightful state. She's locked herself in her boudoir and is threatening all manner of half-baked retaliations, including the culling of her horse Primrose and the dumping of its carcass on the steps of 10 Downing Street.
As a concerned friend I found myself trotting down to my local community centre in order to gen-up on courses, etc. You see, without the pleasures of the hunt, Tabs will have an awful lot of hours to fill...
I thought about enrolling her on "The Weather and Climate of the British Isles" course. According to the blurb, the course aims to "explore the weather's fundamental characteristics, and to examine the main mechanisms that explain its day to day changes. Further topics include the meteorology of extreme events (with case studies), a discussion of regional climates of the British Isles, and the application of climatic knowledge."
Hmmm. Not sure about that one...Any suggestions about how hunt supporters could spend their newly aquired free time ?
...Or devise a more post-modern approach to hunting, perhaps ?
In Scandinavia the hunt chases human prey. After he or she is caught (the peace-loving, non-violent Scandinavian dogs are showered with treats by the quarry and whelp and wag their tails in delight...) participants and onlookers retire to the local tavern for a glass of schnapps, an open sandwich or two, and a bit of hanky-panky in the unisex sauna (thereby retaining the hunt's sexual connotations - very important!)
Perhaps English hunts could devise something similar. "Celebrity hunt" would be one option. Just think of the crowd it would attract! I'd willingly fork out a tenner to watch a pack of dogs chase a naked Johnny Vegas across the English countryside...or that delightfully foxy Jordan.
Tally Ho, our kid!
Ha! Now there's a subject in itself.
I was reading a book I confiscated from a kid at school (!). In it it showed the statistics of how the grey squirrel population was growing at an alarming rate. Apparently it will take something like 250, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 to cover the earth entirely (assuming they could float) and they are already well on their way to achieving that. I get loads in my garden.
Well, this week is going from bad to jolly worse...
Me 'ard mate Mick (likewise a very good friend of Lady Tab) is really seething. Apparently, essence of bovine is about to be removed from Bovril and replaced with yeast extract! What's he going to drink after a hard day's work flushing out those pesky fox cubs and feeding them to the pack ? I ask you, is nothing sacred ?
I know i am probably going to regret this but, Denver i have to question the logic and what seems to me, a contradiction in statement.
In the later post you stated:
>>If you're hunting for food, I have no objection. If your hunting for pleasure of killing, then I draw a line.<<
Is Fishing not another form of hunting for pleasure?The hook and the line, instead of the beagle and the hound?
I fish to, but i would be the first to admit the it is a selfish act that causes un justifiable pain, distress and probably leads to death.
The fact that you eat the fish dose not justify the kill. You could just as easily eat something different, you would not starve if you did not fish.
So come on Denver, admit it!
You fish for the same reasons that the hunter hunts, The frill of the catch and in most cases the kill!
I don't have an opinion on this but is moron baiting still legal?
Only asking since nowadays, many whimternet sites seem to cater for the survival of the thickest.
But I suppose that's true democracy for you. After all, there are more thick people online than not.
>> I have decided not to have opinions. <<
Oh you're just saying that, a man of your kaliber can't help but have opinions.
>> I don't have an opinion on this but is moron baiting still legal? <<
Legal? It's an obligation, mate.
*looks in mirror at profile and settles for stout rather than thick*
I can't speak for Colin, John, but I was just answering what I thought was a general question. If you were to ask me who I think qualifies, it would be along the lines of dicko, rita and a few others who have demonstrated their unique abilities in the field of moronics. I certainly wouldn't have included yourself in that group.
John,
belatedly....You are right about my fishing. I even admitted I'm no better in theory. I don't equate catching a fish with terrorizing a fox and having it ripped to shreds by dogs as the same type of entertainment. I do eat the fish I keep though. I'm not a vegetarian.
...and she tells me she is a reformed character! No longer will she spend her time decimating the poor fox...from now on she will devote her free time to helping deprived children and to spreading peace, love and understanding throughout the world!
As for those kinky johdpurs and boots and that sexy red hunting jacket she's just discarded...well, let me see if I can squeeze into them...
Pages