Endangered Species List Should Include Babies

  • Thread starter Thread starter elts1956
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

elts1956

Guest
GIVEN there are laws protecting some species of animals, such as the Right Whale, the Grey Wolf and now recently added to the list of species are the following:
Florida bonneted bat
Diamond darter
Rabbitsfoot mussel
the Nevada Construction Crane

Because of what I know are discrepencies of laws governing the protection of life, one of my questions is, how do scientists know the offspring of these protected animals are going to be the same species as their parents? Are these animals a part of the female’s body that we can dispose of because of perhaps an economic need, or burden on the mother. Why can’t these animals be disposed of before they become a greater economic threat to our society? After all, I am sure it has taken a few dollars here and there to make sure their protection is carried out. Would you like to count the millions spent in preserving their lives?

If these animals deserve the right to our protection in order to live, then what about human offspring? Can’t scientists prove that which is conceived by a human man and woman is human from conception onward? If what is conceived by humans a human being, why are there no laws to protect their existence but are protective laws for the animals that are now on the endangered species list?

Is it moral and rational to protect all other species but our own? Is it moral and just that our species is disposable, but many others aren’t? If we are a moral people, wouldn’t we want the most vulnerable and weak of our own kind to be protected and nurtured?

Someone give me a logical answer as to why, if we know humans conceive humans, we are not protecting them from conception to natural death? And if we claim we don’t know humans conceive human offspring, then how prove the offspring of any other species will follow the pattern of nature and produce the same species of the parent species?

How many of you believe human life is worth protecting from conception to natural death?
 
Animals are protected because the hunting of them or the encroaching by us on their territories threatens the existence of the species as a whole. Given that more people are born every year than die, and that more babies are born than suffer the indignity of abortion, the human race as a species is not threatened in any way. Your question doesn’t really make any sense.

Do you want to include human beings on the endangered species list (the list you are referring to) or do you simply want anti-abortion laws in place? If it’s the former, I’d vote no given the fact that homo sapiens does not fit the criteria of an endangered species. If it’s the latter, I’d vote yes, but would seriously question the logic behind your argument, as the two are not related in that context.

Therefore, I didn’t vote, but would like for you to clarify for my sake what exactly you intend with your post. Endangered species or anti-abortion? 🤷 I are confuzzled.
 
IHeartAquinas said:
Animals are protected because the hunting of them or the encroaching by us on their territories threatens the existence of the species as a whole. Given that more people are born every year than die, and that more babies are born than suffer the indignity of abortion, the human race as a species is not threatened in any way. Your question doesn’t really make any sense.

Do you want to include human beings on the endangered species list (the list you are referring to) or do you simply want anti-abortion laws in place? If it’s the former, I’d vote no given the fact that homo sapiens does not fit the criteria of an endangered species. If it’s the latter, I’d vote yes, but would seriously question the logic behind your argument, as the two are not related in that context.

Therefore, I didn’t vote, but would like for you to clarify for my sake what exactly you intend with your post. Endangered species or anti-abortion? 🤷 I are confuzzled.
Click to expand...
I suppose what I said would cause one to be confuzzled. What I meant was, are the animals on the endangered species list more worthy, or of more importance morally than humans? Human life as we know it is endangered through the lifting of federal laws regarding abortion. So are they endangered, or not?
 
It’s one thing to believe that all human life is sacred and should be protected from conception to natural death. It’s another thing entirely to say humans should be put on the endangered species list.

There are better ways and more dignified ways to protect human life at all stages than to put us on the same list as that of wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and certain kinds of bats. Plus, I think with 6+ billion people on earth you’d be a little hard pressed to argue that the human species is somehow endangered.

ChadS
 
I think this is a great idea. I think it is absurd that the unborn of other species have more protection than do our own.
 
Yes regarding the poll.
However, regarding the thread title, I would be wary of placing human beings in the same category as animals. Respect for human life should be above and beyond that of the animals.
 
elts1956 said:
I suppose what I said would cause one to be confuzzled. What I meant was, are the animals on the endangered species list more worthy, or of more importance morally than humans? Human life as we know it is endangered through the lifting of federal laws regarding abortion. So are they endangered, or not?
Click to expand...
In answer to your questions in order:
  1. No. Animals are not more worthy. The sanctity of life extends to humanity in particular, to all of creation in general. Hence we are stewards of the earth, not reckless exploiters of it (or at least, we should be. Dunno how well that’s going), which is why the endangered species list is a good thing…BUT
  2. Humanity is not in the least bit endangered. Nor is humanity even threatened in any particular way by existing abortion/contraception law in much of the world. When the world’s population falls into decline at a rate that we cannot possibly support with current reproduction numbers, then humanity can be considered endangered. But yes, I believe abortion should be illegal and contraception should be discouraged if not outright banned. But teenagers and young adults need to be seriously educated prior to any ban. Education is key, not more laws. 😉
 
ChadS said:
It’s one thing to believe that all human life is sacred and should be protected from conception to natural death. It’s another thing entirely to say humans should be put on the endangered species list.

There are better ways and more dignified ways to protect human life at all stages than to put us on the same list as that of wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and certain kinds of bats. Plus, I think with 6+ billion people on earth you’d be a little hard pressed to argue that the human species is somehow endangered.

ChadS
Click to expand...
Give me a break. I think you know I meant to ask the question, “Why are so many other species (usually endangered ones) protected by law while our species isn’t?” Now was that so hard to understand?
 
ChadS said:
It’s one thing to believe that all human life is sacred and should be protected from conception to natural death. It’s another thing entirely to say humans should be put on the endangered species list.

There are better ways and more dignified ways to protect human life at all stages than to put us on the same list as that of wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and certain kinds of bats. Plus, I think with 6+ billion people on earth you’d be a little hard pressed to argue that the human species is somehow endangered.

ChadS
Click to expand...
IHeartAquinas said:
In answer to your questions in order:
  1. No. Animals are not more worthy. The sanctity of life extends to humanity in particular, to all of creation in general. Hence we are stewards of the earth, not reckless exploiters of it (or at least, we should be. Dunno how well that’s going), which is why the endangered species list is a good thing…BUT
  2. Humanity is not in the least bit endangered. Nor is humanity even threatened in any particular way by existing abortion/contraception law in much of the world. When the world’s population falls into decline at a rate that we cannot possibly support with current reproduction numbers, then humanity can be considered endangered. But yes, I believe abortion should be illegal and contraception should be discouraged if not outright banned. But teenagers and young adults need to be seriously educated prior to any ban. Education is key, not more laws. 😉
Click to expand...
I think laws cause people (some) to sit up and take notice. No laws, no attention. (at all) 😉
 
mapleoak said:
Yes regarding the poll.
However, regarding the thread title, I would be wary of placing human beings in the same category as animals. Respect for human life should be above and beyond that of the animals.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I said anything about humans being in the same category as other animals, only questioned why they aren’t protected.
 
elts1956 said:
I don’t think I said anything about humans being in the same category as other animals, only questioned why they aren’t protected.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying that the human species conceives human beings whose lives must be protected from conception to natural death. The government has a grave duty and responsibility in that area and that in which it is currently failing miserably at. I don’t believe however that the solution is for human beings to be included on the list of animals endangered species. I don’t believe that is what you meant, only that is what it looked like from the thread title.
 
mapleoak said:
I understand what you are saying that the human species conceives human beings whose lives must be protected from conception to natural death. The government has a grave duty and responsibility in that area and that in which it is currently failing miserably at. I don’t believe however that the solution is for human beings to be included on the list of animals endangered species. I don’t believe that is what you meant, only that is what it looked like from the thread title.
Click to expand...
🙂
 
I would be against putting human babies on any kind of endangered species list on the same moral grounds as the Danbury Baptist Association were against the First Amendment granting freedom of religion (as they wrote to Thomas Jefferson about).

The reason is, the right to life is NOT a right granted by man, it is a right granted by God. When we try to make laws such as endangered species list for humans, we, perhaps unknowingly, place into the hands of lawmakers that right to live. Before doing that, you better consider the downside… that someday another group of men might come along and, seeing as how it is within their power to legislate it, decide to take away that right. They could, as it were, “open the season” on the unborn.

So I would not want man thinking they have legislative power over the right of “being.” That power belongs to God, not man.
 
DOShea said:
I would be against putting human babies on any kind of endangered species list on the same moral grounds as the Danbury Baptist Association were against the First Amendment granting freedom of religion (as they wrote to Thomas Jefferson about).

The reason is, the right to life is NOT a right granted by man, it is a right granted by God. When we try to make laws such as endangered species list for humans, we, perhaps unknowingly, place into the hands of lawmakers that right to live. Before doing that, you better consider the downside… that someday another group of men might come along and, seeing as how it is within their power to legislate it, decide to take away that right. They could, as it were, “open the season” on the unborn.

So I would not want man thinking they have legislative power over the right of “being.” That power belongs to God, not man.
Click to expand...
I apologize for confusing everyone. I did not mean that humans should be put on an endangereed species list. I did not intend to equate humans with other lower mammals. What I intended was to emphasize that babies in the womb are endangered and they are not protected by law while other lower case mammals are. This is the last time I am explaining myself on this thread. Any more questions and I will just cut and paste. 😃
 
elts1956 said:
What I intended was to emphasize that babies in the womb are endangered and they are not protected by law while other lower case mammals are. This is the last time I am explaining myself on this thread. Any more questions and I will just cut and paste. 😃
Click to expand...
I understood your distinction. It was against this idea that baby’s right to life should be in a law that I’m against. Any law that man makes, man can reverse, so I’m not willing to support giving that power to man. I support acknowledging the unborn are human lives, and therefore are afforded all the inalienable rights any other human gets.
 
elts1956 said:
I apologize for confusing everyone. I did not mean that humans should be put on an endangereed species list. I did not intend to equate humans with other lower mammals. What I intended was to emphasize that babies in the womb are endangered and they are not protected by law while other lower case mammals are. This is the last time I am explaining myself on this thread. Any more questions and I will just cut and paste. 😃
Click to expand...
Right. Stop picking on elts. I think we all get it, eh? :D. (which is why there are 8 votes for yes and none for no) 😉
 
DOShea said:
When we try to make laws such as endangered species list for humans, we, perhaps unknowingly, place into the hands of lawmakers that right to live. Before doing that, you better consider the downside… that someday another group of men might come along and, seeing as how it is within their power to legislate it, decide to take away that right. They could, as it were, “open the season” on the unborn
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that “the season” officially opened on January 22nd 1973
 
DOShea said:
I understood your distinction. It was against this idea that baby’s right to life should be in a law that I’m against. Any law that man makes, man can reverse, so I’m not willing to support giving that power to man. I support acknowledging the unborn are human lives, and therefore are afforded all the inalienable rights any other human gets.
Click to expand...
The problem is, there are few laws to protect the unborn now. Has that lessened abortions? I think not. And if the Health Care bill passes, there will be no law, because I think Stupak’s amendment will be thrown out.

And what about the Ten Commandments? Aren’t they at the basis of all our moral law? 😉
 
DOShea said:
I understood your distinction. It was against this idea that baby’s right to life should be in a law that I’m against. Any law that man makes, man can reverse, so I’m not willing to support giving that power to man. I support acknowledging the unborn are human lives, and therefore are afforded all the inalienable rights any other human gets.
Click to expand...
kooldood said:
Right. Stop picking on elts. I think we all get it, eh? :D. (which is why there are 8 votes for yes and none for no) 😉
Click to expand...
😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top