Killing sprees

At one point in our short lives, we find out that we actually have the power to kill a living being. From that point forward, we define and refine our concept of what a life is worth.

For most people, humans are off limits in regards to killing; plants on the other hand are generally viewed as expendable. These two groups seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum when evaluating living beings. Of course, with different cultures come different evaluations, but as a general rule, I would think this stands.

Between these two beings live a whole host of animal/plant life, and that's where it becomes interesting. I would posit that more intelligence grants the holder more value, along with being bigger, animated, and more rare. We hear about saving the whales more than having a vigil for the housefly.

But what about the situation of saving a 200 year old Redwood vs. a chipmunk. Now we have to do some evaluations. The Redwood is bigger and arguably more rare, but the chipmunk is animated and arguably more intelligent. If you had to kill one, which would you choose? Would mitigating circumstances come to bear as in the dead tree can be used for lumber or the dead chipmunk can be eaten or made into a hat (of sorts)?

What's really interesting is to look through this lens when observing the current debate on killing a fetus. The pro-abortion group must see the fetus as less than human. For our terms in this post, the fetuses have less intelligence and are smaller. The opposite value added attributes are that they are animated and rare (at least for that specific mother). Once that fetus enters the world and becomes a baby, everything changes....except, they still have less intelligence and are smaller, all the while being (more) animated and rare (an individual now). By virtue of being physically separated from its mother, the (now) baby gains an immeasurable value and is protected by all sorts of laws and rights. What a difference a day makes.....

Personally, I am anti-abortion. In all cases. Every single one. Makes me a hated, non-compassionate, scum-sucking moron. I know. /shrug. I refuse to endorse an idea that values one life above another solely due to a geographic issue - the baby's residence in the womb vs. the baby's residence in the crib.

For all of you still reading, I wasn't sure how this post was going to turn out. I wanted to work through how life in general was evaluated. But the train of thought ended up here. meh. Think I'll go kill some pixels.