Murder:
An Introduction For Individuals Without Opinions
January 5, 2017
G.D.O’Bradovich III
general observations
We English speakers are a lazy lot, where “Uh huh” means “Yes” and “Uh huh” means “No”; appropriate intonation determines the intended meaning. Therefore, through our formative years, we are accustomed to “loose”, lax, or inaccurate communication, without detrimental consequences, or loss of life and limb.
While we are generally not specific when speaking, allowing the interchange of infant, baby, and toddler, this lax speaking is not applicable when we discuss killing. We may conclude that the concept of actual human life is an important part of communication, as demonstrated by stricter adherence to exactly what words mean.
No one doubts the existence of the killing of livestock, of trees, of men, and of pets; but we avoid using the word “killing”, instead we slaughter livestock, fell trees, murder men, and “put to sleep” pets. In reality, we only kill annoying houseflies and other bothersome things or when our lives are threatened, such as by bears. Although not inherent in the word, “killing”, on a certain level, seems to be associated with being a justifiable action.
While we always attempt to write clearly, due to our subject, we must strive to be concise and thorough, lest we confuse ourselves with contradictory or inaccurate conclusions.
While we are generally not specific when speaking, allowing the interchange of infant, baby, and toddler, this lax speaking is not applicable when we discuss killing. We may conclude that the concept of actual human life is an important part of communication, as demonstrated by stricter adherence to exactly what words mean.
No one doubts the existence of the killing of livestock, of trees, of men, and of pets; but we avoid using the word “killing”, instead we slaughter livestock, fell trees, murder men, and “put to sleep” pets. In reality, we only kill annoying houseflies and other bothersome things or when our lives are threatened, such as by bears. Although not inherent in the word, “killing”, on a certain level, seems to be associated with being a justifiable action.
While we always attempt to write clearly, due to our subject, we must strive to be concise and thorough, lest we confuse ourselves with contradictory or inaccurate conclusions.
what is life?
While we welcome scientific advances, these accomplishments are not available to everyone, such as historical personalities. We will discuss only what is accessible to men as men. Generally speaking, living entities breathe, eat, reproduce, are independent, and mobile.
what is man?
Man is considered a mammal, as he conforms to this scientific description. Normal adults are bipedal, use language, and reason.
Immature humans or babies crawl, but have the potential to walk; they babble, but have the potential to master language; they do not have reason, but have the potential to learn reason. Yet, for all of their shortcomings, few people would conclude, or suggest, that babies are not actual humans and their murder is acceptable.
Likewise, some old humans babble, cannot walk, and have lost the ability to reason; again few individuals would suggest these examples are not actual humans, and their murder would be acceptable.
Therefore, we must conclude that the only two characteristics all humans have is breathing and consuming food or eating. Of course, puppies eat and breath, but they do not have the potential to be anything but adult dogs.
Immature humans or babies crawl, but have the potential to walk; they babble, but have the potential to master language; they do not have reason, but have the potential to learn reason. Yet, for all of their shortcomings, few people would conclude, or suggest, that babies are not actual humans and their murder is acceptable.
Likewise, some old humans babble, cannot walk, and have lost the ability to reason; again few individuals would suggest these examples are not actual humans, and their murder would be acceptable.
Therefore, we must conclude that the only two characteristics all humans have is breathing and consuming food or eating. Of course, puppies eat and breath, but they do not have the potential to be anything but adult dogs.
what is murder?
Murder is the killing of an actual human being, whether an infant, a teenager, or an adult. The killing of teenagers may be described as manslaughter, usually justified.
what is abortion?
Natural abortions occur when the body rejects the embryo or fetus and it is thought that up to one third of all pregnancies are naturally aborted. Generally speaking, induced abortions are the intentional termination of a pregnancy. We note that “termination” is not materially different than slaughtering cows, or felling pine trees; the implication of the wording is that the killing of a fetus, something not human, yet a potential human, is not the same as murder, the killing of an actual human. Most people do not consider animals and plants to be equivalent to human beings, therefore, the termination of their existence carries few moral concerns.
discussion
Some people suggest that an induced abortion is murder, while others would allow murder in instances of rape or incest. The difference of opinion over what constitutes an acceptable murder is a clear indication that our topic is not objective, but subjective.
Some people believe the moment of conception is the creation of an actual human being. Yet, these individuals refuse to hold the potential mother responsible for any natural abortions. Induced abortions are considered to be murder, but natural abortions are not suggested by anyone to be murder. Since few people suggest the potential mother should be held accountable for natural abortions, this lack of consistency between types of abortions creates doubt as to whether these individuals truly believe natural abortions are murder, or whether natural abortions should be classified as accidental deaths. Yet, these accidental deaths are not catalogued and recorded by the local board of health.
We note that opponents of induced abortions do not mention future legislation equating natural abortions with accidental deaths. This omission possibly indicates that they do not believe natural abortions are either accidental or deaths. Continuing: if a natural abortion is not an accident, then who was the cause of the abortion? And if a natural abortion is not an actual death, why be opposed to an induced abortion?
We only know that the embryo has the potential to become a fetus, this potential is not a certainty. The fetus has the potential to be born. The newborn has the potential to become an adult. The stages of growth are never certainties, only possibilities.
If the conception is an actual human, then, working backwards we must inquire if a sperm cell is to be considered human. While we doubt this designation is reasonable, as the implication would mean that 200 million sperm cells, or humans, die for every successfully fertilized egg. Clearly, on any given day, the average male teenager would be correctly considered a mass murderer by this standard. Since few people are willing to suggest that male masturbation is the equivalent of murdering actual humans, we conclude that sperm cells are not understood as actual humans, only potential humans. We note that the majority are fated to die as failures. For the purpose of completeness, we note that female masturbation does not involve the loss of any eggs, or potential humans. As the superabundance of sperm seems to be expendable to the point of wasteful, while eggs are not, the Gentle Reader may wonder how Nature values the relative expendability of male and female humans.
Some people believe the moment of conception is the creation of an actual human being. Yet, these individuals refuse to hold the potential mother responsible for any natural abortions. Induced abortions are considered to be murder, but natural abortions are not suggested by anyone to be murder. Since few people suggest the potential mother should be held accountable for natural abortions, this lack of consistency between types of abortions creates doubt as to whether these individuals truly believe natural abortions are murder, or whether natural abortions should be classified as accidental deaths. Yet, these accidental deaths are not catalogued and recorded by the local board of health.
We note that opponents of induced abortions do not mention future legislation equating natural abortions with accidental deaths. This omission possibly indicates that they do not believe natural abortions are either accidental or deaths. Continuing: if a natural abortion is not an accident, then who was the cause of the abortion? And if a natural abortion is not an actual death, why be opposed to an induced abortion?
We only know that the embryo has the potential to become a fetus, this potential is not a certainty. The fetus has the potential to be born. The newborn has the potential to become an adult. The stages of growth are never certainties, only possibilities.
If the conception is an actual human, then, working backwards we must inquire if a sperm cell is to be considered human. While we doubt this designation is reasonable, as the implication would mean that 200 million sperm cells, or humans, die for every successfully fertilized egg. Clearly, on any given day, the average male teenager would be correctly considered a mass murderer by this standard. Since few people are willing to suggest that male masturbation is the equivalent of murdering actual humans, we conclude that sperm cells are not understood as actual humans, only potential humans. We note that the majority are fated to die as failures. For the purpose of completeness, we note that female masturbation does not involve the loss of any eggs, or potential humans. As the superabundance of sperm seems to be expendable to the point of wasteful, while eggs are not, the Gentle Reader may wonder how Nature values the relative expendability of male and female humans.
intermediate conclusions
The vast majority of people understand that killing humans is murder, and that murder is morally wrong, as it involuntarily, from the viewpoint of the victim, removes actual human life. For our purposes, killing can only happen after birth, fortunately, there is near unanimous consent on this point.
The vast majority of people do not understand either single sperm cells or single egg cells as being actual human beings.
Therefore, we are reasonably certain that humans do not exist before conception. This conclusion is based both on how people view germ cells and reasonable attributes and characteristics of actual humans.
Actual humans may or may not exist from embryo to fetus, and this uncertainty regarding their humanity is the cause of debate.
However, we are certain humans definitely exist after birth.
The statuses of the embryo and the fetus must be examined to determine if either, or both, are actual human beings, or are potential human beings.
We leave the observable objective world for the speculative subjective realm.
Some people believe that the soul is infused at conception. We can reason that is not possible, unless some people are willing to admit that the soul can be divided, perhaps unequally, as in the case of identical twins, Denver and Brayden. Therefore, the soul cannot enter the embryo until an undetermined time after conception.
The newly fertilized egg does not receive oxygen or nourishment, since there is no placenta. To suggest that this cell is an actual human implies that some humans do not need oxygen or nourishment, while most humans, or actual humans, have vital requirements. It is a contradiction of our discussion that a cell considered to be an actual human has no vital requirements.
The fact that the conceptus has a unique genetic code cannot be evidence for it being an actual human.
Identical twins do not have a unique genetic code, as it is shared with their sibling, and few people are willing to state that the elder Denver is human, while the younger Brayden is not human. “For the heel catcher I have loved, but …”
If we accept the premise that the fetus is a human because it needs oxygen and nutrition, then we must conclude that there are two varieties of actual humans: those with placentas and those without. If we do not accept there are at least two types of actual humans, then we must reject the idea that embryos are actual humans, only acknowledging their potential to become actual humans.
The vast majority of people do not understand either single sperm cells or single egg cells as being actual human beings.
Therefore, we are reasonably certain that humans do not exist before conception. This conclusion is based both on how people view germ cells and reasonable attributes and characteristics of actual humans.
Actual humans may or may not exist from embryo to fetus, and this uncertainty regarding their humanity is the cause of debate.
However, we are certain humans definitely exist after birth.
The statuses of the embryo and the fetus must be examined to determine if either, or both, are actual human beings, or are potential human beings.
We leave the observable objective world for the speculative subjective realm.
Some people believe that the soul is infused at conception. We can reason that is not possible, unless some people are willing to admit that the soul can be divided, perhaps unequally, as in the case of identical twins, Denver and Brayden. Therefore, the soul cannot enter the embryo until an undetermined time after conception.
The newly fertilized egg does not receive oxygen or nourishment, since there is no placenta. To suggest that this cell is an actual human implies that some humans do not need oxygen or nourishment, while most humans, or actual humans, have vital requirements. It is a contradiction of our discussion that a cell considered to be an actual human has no vital requirements.
The fact that the conceptus has a unique genetic code cannot be evidence for it being an actual human.
Identical twins do not have a unique genetic code, as it is shared with their sibling, and few people are willing to state that the elder Denver is human, while the younger Brayden is not human. “For the heel catcher I have loved, but …”
If we accept the premise that the fetus is a human because it needs oxygen and nutrition, then we must conclude that there are two varieties of actual humans: those with placentas and those without. If we do not accept there are at least two types of actual humans, then we must reject the idea that embryos are actual humans, only acknowledging their potential to become actual humans.
final conclusions
Unlike most of our conclusions, we will not provide any one or definite conclusion as to whether induced abortions are the killing of an actual human being or the removal of the possibility of becoming human.
The Gentle Reader, as always, will reach his own informed and reasonable conclusions regarding the morality of murder, of masturbation, teenage or otherwise, and the immortal soul.
The Gentle Reader, as always, will reach his own informed and reasonable conclusions regarding the morality of murder, of masturbation, teenage or otherwise, and the immortal soul.