What it is all about ?

[JHAQ]

To me the following argument seems air tight logical but I never seem able to convince anybody as to is correctness . Any inputs from readers would be most appreciated . I tend to be pro choice on the abortion issue because I feel the act of termination in a sudden & painless manner and w/o anticipatory FOREKNOWLEDGE on the part of the victim does in fact do no harm or cause any suffering to that victim . Even if somebody suddenly killed me in a similar manner , they would have done no harm to ME . To believe otherwise is to ASSUME that one enters another realm of conciousness wherein one experiences everlasting regret at having been deprived of life . They may have hurt those who care for me , offended society at large & created a precedent of sorts but no harm or hurt to ME . As Samuel Johnson said -- If a man KNOWS he is going to be hanged on the morrow , it fixes his attention wonderfully . To add. I believe we have been dead in the sense of non-existence for all eternity before we were conceived and when we die we return to that state of non -existence wherein we miss nothing and suffer nothing --why then do we try to stay alive at all costs . It is because we are programmed to do so by our genomic DNA which not only defines us but also , for its “own” interests , mandates our survival as we are ITS way of making another genome and once we have done that we are expendable . If we were not so programmed by millions of years of natural selection , then we would have become extinct . In effect we are CONTROLLED by our genomic inheritance to an extent which exceeds even our drive for sexual interaction & to replicate .IF we can overcome that innate drive , we become free in the sense that dying holds no terrors & becomes an option when overwhelmed by problems of one sort or another . Is living then really worth the cost of suffering beyond a certain point AND , bearing in mind the above re - anticipatory foreknowledge , can such life termination be extended under certain circumstances to other people . Death is the price we pay for the ability to reproduce sexually .Sexual reproduction ( essentially universal in all life forms ) is to shuffle the genetic pack of “cards “ so to speak to produce variability for the selective action of the environment to work on ( not DNA identical clones as asexual reproduction gives ) which cannot adapt as well or quickly to environmental changes . The only immortal entities are clones or amoeba like organisms which just undergo binary fission . DNA , however IS potentially immortal ( though with different encoding & we are just expendable “machines “ for its perpetuation )

[Fuzzwood]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

[farmboy]

Sorry, not really sure what your theory is really saying. Needs a more concise explanation, or a summary. To me it seems that you are suggesting that if you were to kill someone in a manner that caused them no pain and ensured that they never knew they were dying it would be fine basically because humans aren't immortal. If that is the case I have to disagree. The fact is that humans are more than their genetic programming. In deciding what someone does with their life there's no good reason that DNA should have precedence over us. People have the right to do what they want with their lives, including carrying on living, and if you were to kill them you would be infringing on their rights.

[mooeypoo]

You might want to consider using paragraphs to make your chunk readable if you intend for anyone to be willing to read your theory, JHAQ. And a proper title.

[JohnB]

What it is all about ?

I find that "put your right hand in, put your right hand out" solves that question.