Omar Kareem V.

Mauiricio Thought 2007 63289

Speculative SJ Toledano

If man can make life via childbirth, why cant man take away anothers life by law? Man is known to be able to reproduce life thru conception and birth. Generally, man is able to reproduce a being of its kind. It has the same genetic make-up, the same state of being and basically a mind of its own. If reproduction of life is that accessible to men, then why is man prohibited by law to take away another human life? If it may be compared to living things of which it is like, trees for example or animals for breeding. Plants are thought to be living things but are cut down for human benefit and in turn, seeds or seedlings are cultivated to replace the cut down tree. Animals are thought to be alive but are slaughtered but not to worry for breeders and raiser will produce animals which will take the place of the slaughtered animal. One may consider that such comparison would be fallacious but science agrees that no matter how much advance in our society and way of living, we are under the same umbrella in which plants and animals are in Living things. That which are thought to breathe, thought to be alive and thought to have lives. If science classifies us to be under one umbrella, that of living things then why must men be treated any different. Then why is man prohibited by law? According to religious scriptures man is given soul which makes it rational and capable of will and having conscience. If one strongly holds to such belief then it is enough to know man is only able to create a physical temple for the soul and life does not exist yet and is only given by the one true God. Science believes that men are the highest form of animals capable of forming societies governed by rules and reasons; thus, is capable of thought and discipline. Setting such theories aside there seems to lie no concrete answer but the fact that man prohibits the taking away of life to maintain social order. However, certain questions regarding ones own existence must come into question. *Henceforth, when life or being alive is mentioned, it refers to the human sate of being alive. First is what is life anyway? We are certain that for science, it is the mere function of cells. But to religion, life is being able to possess soul and spirit. And try as we might to say that the soul does not exits, we cannot. In the same manner, try as we might to say that the soul exists, we cannot. This is why we cannot merely disregard such fact for we have no proof in its inexistence. Second to take into consideration is who gave you the capability create life in the first place? All of this would only lead us to answer the unanswered question of how began? And since we are unable to answer such question, we are unable to say if humans are liable of creating humans themselves. Third, in reason, man has no right to take away what is not his in the first place. Humans may be capable of creating life but saying that it is possessively yours because you created it is not a valid claim. Since being alive is having a mind of your own and the mind as an abstract entity is a possession only of the person who conceives it, then other human beings cannot claim that they are yours. It is not a question of what if Ethics and Morality was not conceived? For this is the nature of human beings being rational, logical and ethical.