DeletedUser8396
Guest
Be mature here. If this turns into a flame/hate fest, I'll simply close it and hand out infractions. Civility and respect will get you a long way, now let's begin:
Definition of murder: the premeditated taking of a human life who has not committed an act deserving of death.
Now, I will proceed:
At one point I did not exist. I was not an idea, not a thought, not a concept feasible to the mind. I then became an idea and a concept, but my physical nature did not yet exist. Then, one day, it did. Starting out as a clump of cells, my physical nature began. Although I could not yet be classified scientifically as “human”, the cells that existed embodied the idea and concept of what I would become – human.
The cells that were not scientifically human were, conceptually and idealistically, human. If one could view the cells and ask my parents “What is that?” they would most assuredly say something to the effect that the clump of cells was their child or soon-to-be child. The clump of cells not yet human were used to describe what would one day be considered human in several months.
All of this to say, although the clump of cells is not defined as human, the cells are undoubtedly known to have the capacity and definite conclusion of becoming human. This then means that interfering with the cell becoming human would therefore be denying the potential existence its humanity with full knowing of the act committed.
As humans are certain to experience joy and pain, among other things, we therefore can determine that by denying the cells humanity by interfering, we have deprived the potential existence for joy as well as pain. We have also denied the cells the potential to think and have choice.
Allow me to construct another argument: a child is promised he will be taken to a theme park. However, when the day comes, the parents take away the theme park for no just cause on the child’s part. The child was undoubtedly promised to enjoy himself, but the potential for the joy was taken. We can adequately say that the joy was stolen from the child unjustly.
Using the similar argument: if a cell is destined to have joy through existence, but then denied the existence for no just cause on the cells’ part, the cell has therefore been denied joy unjustly. Apply the same argument for every aspect of humanity such as love, pain, hate, thinking, experiences, and, most importantly, life.
Thus, we have stolen human life unjustly from the cell- unjustly taken human life (from what it is taken from is irrelevant to the definition). As we knew the cell had the potential to become human, the unjust denial was premeditated. In essence, we have killed the potential for life and thus sentenced the potential human to death for no just cause.
We therefore are guilty of the taking of a human life that has not done anything deserving of death. In adherence to the initial definition, we are guilty of murder.
Definition of murder: the premeditated taking of a human life who has not committed an act deserving of death.
Now, I will proceed:
At one point I did not exist. I was not an idea, not a thought, not a concept feasible to the mind. I then became an idea and a concept, but my physical nature did not yet exist. Then, one day, it did. Starting out as a clump of cells, my physical nature began. Although I could not yet be classified scientifically as “human”, the cells that existed embodied the idea and concept of what I would become – human.
The cells that were not scientifically human were, conceptually and idealistically, human. If one could view the cells and ask my parents “What is that?” they would most assuredly say something to the effect that the clump of cells was their child or soon-to-be child. The clump of cells not yet human were used to describe what would one day be considered human in several months.
All of this to say, although the clump of cells is not defined as human, the cells are undoubtedly known to have the capacity and definite conclusion of becoming human. This then means that interfering with the cell becoming human would therefore be denying the potential existence its humanity with full knowing of the act committed.
As humans are certain to experience joy and pain, among other things, we therefore can determine that by denying the cells humanity by interfering, we have deprived the potential existence for joy as well as pain. We have also denied the cells the potential to think and have choice.
Allow me to construct another argument: a child is promised he will be taken to a theme park. However, when the day comes, the parents take away the theme park for no just cause on the child’s part. The child was undoubtedly promised to enjoy himself, but the potential for the joy was taken. We can adequately say that the joy was stolen from the child unjustly.
Using the similar argument: if a cell is destined to have joy through existence, but then denied the existence for no just cause on the cells’ part, the cell has therefore been denied joy unjustly. Apply the same argument for every aspect of humanity such as love, pain, hate, thinking, experiences, and, most importantly, life.
Thus, we have stolen human life unjustly from the cell- unjustly taken human life (from what it is taken from is irrelevant to the definition). As we knew the cell had the potential to become human, the unjust denial was premeditated. In essence, we have killed the potential for life and thus sentenced the potential human to death for no just cause.
We therefore are guilty of the taking of a human life that has not done anything deserving of death. In adherence to the initial definition, we are guilty of murder.