Freethought & Rationalism Archive

LordSnooty · 12-13-2002, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool:
The government makes no distinction between an egg and the adult when dealing with "protected" species.
...
And since humans are valued more than golden eagles, according to the laws of this country, the penalty for killing a human is much stiffer. Therefore the penalty for killing a human embryo ought to be equal to the penalty for killing a fully developed adult. This only follows. You can say you don't agree with these morals, but the laws are right there in black and white. If the analogy is true, then the argument must logically follow. If it is as wrong to destroy an egg as it is a bird, (and by the laws of this country it is,) then it is as wrong to destroy a human embryo as it is a developed adult human. This follows logically.

Unless you can refute my logic or show where my analogy is false, (and yours is not) this seems to be proof that abortion should not be legal and, in fact, should carry a penalty equal to that pertaining to the willful destruction of a human being.

I have a refutation. The reason it's illegal to kill the eagle eggs is simply that the species is so rare. People that collect or destroy the eggs will contribute to the extinction of the species.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the morality of destroying an egg over an adult, but everything to do with the morality of causing an entire species to become extinct.

Since I have refuted you, and proven your argument to be false and illogical, I trust you shall now admit that you were wrong (no - no, of course you won't).

The laws of your country and mine make a clear distinction between a zygote and a human being. You may not like these laws, or my morality, but I'm afraid they're down in black and white, and you'll have to either a) like it or b) lump it.

Paul

Puck · 12-13-2002, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool:

But anti-abortionists ARE trying to legislate their beliefs over yours. What makes this wrong? If I decided to stop feeding my seven-year-old child because he's mine and I'm the one who pays for him to live, are you going to tell me it's wrong?

What the hell does bringing up a seven year old child into the picture have to do with it? How can you compare a zygot to a human child? Any fool can see the difference here. It's your contention that a zygot is human by virtue of it's potential. It's my contention that a zygot is only a little blob of cells that could become human under positive conditions. It is not human, yet.

So, in the long run, it would be desirable to you to police my womb? To spy on my sex life in order to determine if I could be allowed to have an abortion? So I am 48, and you are 25 and you have a right to query me on how I came to be pregnant? I should have to explain to you what happened?

At this point I am convinced you have a dick swinging between your legs. How else can you be so callus as to assume it would be acceptable to intrude so deeply into a womans difficult and personal choices? If I was raped, and sought an abortion, even for medical reasons, and had to explain to you what happened for permission to abort, it would feel like a second damned rape.

I have a daughter and grandaughter, they are the light of my life. I know what love for a child is. I know what respect for life is. I know all the imtimate details of conception, pergnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, child, teenager, young adult, and watching your grandchild come into your life and repeat the process.

This much is true. If by some weird reason I became pregnant and had to prove to any supposed womb police I had a right to stop an unwanted growth within me, I'd just do the job myself. Because, it's none of your business.

MarcoPolo · 12-13-2002, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Puck:
It's my contention that a zygot is only a little blob of cells that could become human under positive conditions. It is not human, yet.

When does it become human?

Puck · 12-13-2002, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarcoPolo:

When does it become human?

In my opinion? When it can survive outside the womb without a million dollars worth of life saving technology.

And here's the catch, in my book. That's my opinion. Your's may be different and I will defend your right to express that opinion. But they both must be respected and we each must be left alone to act on what we feel is the right thing to do. Someone who doesn't believe in abortion should not be expected to abort because the fetus is missing most of the brain that composes the human part of us. I would think it wrong to continue the pregnancy, but it's not for me to decide what another woman should do.

Being pregnant is a very intense, personal thing. There are so many personal thoughts that accompany pregnancy, so may different situations. You are the possible host of something that may be the best thing to ever happen to you, or something that may destroy your future life and happiness.

Each of us must come to our own conclusions. But I expect enough respect for my beliefs that even if you disagree with me, you will defend my rights to handle these decisions myself. In my book, you wouldn't be saving a life (the zygot/fetus), you would be destroying mine. I find it personally insulting that anyone would try to force their personal beliefs on me, as if what I belive doesn't count, as if they are smarter than I am, or more moral, or better in some way.

And the thought of someone interrogating me to decide if I could have an abortion frightens me. It takes away everything that makes me fully human, the right of my own destiny. Someone with less life expierence, less time loving and losing loved ones grilling me on something so intimate?

Before you go poking about in my womb, go take care of the children already here. Too may of them are, as you are reading this, right this very moment dying horrible deaths. If you believe in the wonder of human life, there's a cause you have a right (nay, a duty?) to do something about. There's where it's perfectly acceptable to interfere. Adopt an unwanted seriously ill child and give them the love they deserve. A child you would prevent being aborted means you personally have a duty to that child. Don't wait for someone else to step up to the plate. When everyone that would make abortion illegal takes in all the unwanted children suffering on this earth, then, and only then, do they have a right to bring up the issue. Even then, they still don't have the right to decide for me persoanlly.

MarcoPolo · 12-13-2002, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Puck:
When does it become human?

In my opinion? When it can survive outside the womb without a million dollars worth of life saving technology.

Hmmm.. I understand and appreciate the argument you're making, but are you saying literally a million dollars?

A 22 week old fetus can survive outside the womb with extreme medical care. I'm not sure it would cost a million dollars, but I think it may be in that range you're speaking about. However, I don't think it would cost any more than keeping an adult that had a stroke alive for months either.

Would you equate the two?

Quote:

And here's the catch, in my book. That's my opinion. Your's may be different and I will defend your right to express that opinion.

As I will defend yours!

Quote:

But they both must be respected and we each must be left alone to act on what we feel is the right thing to do.

I don't think they must be respected. You may have the opinion that it's OK to kill your spouse for cheating on you. I certainly wouldn't have to respect that opinion, right? I respect your right to have your own opinions, but I don't have to respect the opinion itself.

Quote:

Being pregnant is a very intense, personal thing.

Should whether the pregnancy is wanted or not have a bearing on WHEN it's OK to abort?

For example, a 22 week old fetus already has lots of human characteristics and can survive on it's own outside the womb. Does being unwanted change that fact?

Quote:

You are the possible host of something that may be the best thing to ever happen to you, or something that may destroy your future life and happiness.

Wow. The person next to you in the grocery store MAY pull out a gun and shoot you. Does that mean you should kill them before they have a chance to do it?

Quote:

Each of us must come to our own conclusions.

No matter how different or extreme the conclusions are? What if a woman at 8 months pregnant, that feels it's not human until it's born, decides to abort. Should we allow that to happen? Should we respect that belief or her right to having her own beliefs?

Quote:

I find it personally insulting that anyone would try to force their personal beliefs on me, as if what I belive doesn't count, as if they are smarter than I am, or more moral, or better in some way.

Quote:

When everyone that would make abortion illegal takes in all the unwanted children suffering on this earth, then, and only then, do they have a right to bring up the issue.

So now you're telling people they don't have a right to an opinion about the subject until they do something.

What if I told you that you don't have the right to have an abortion based on the possibilty that it MIGHT destroy your life until you prove that it actually will destroy your life? Would that be fair to you?

Puck · 12-13-2002, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by MarcoPolo:
Hmmm.. I understand and appreciate the argument you're making, but are you saying literally a million dollars?

Of course not. If I give birth to a premmie, and when it's delivered, it can breath, cry in protest and take nurishment, I then have a duty (and want) to nurture that child. Have you ever been in a neo-natal intensive care unit? Have you seen the horrible things they do to babies born way too early? Too early and they have to do a colostomy on it because the intestines will necrotize (proper wording?). It's little body is trying to die in several different ways. Personally, I believe in letting nature take it's course. Why torture the poor little thing? But if it's your child, I can't make that decision for you.

You wrote:
However, I don't think it would cost any more than keeping an adult that had a stroke alive for months either.

That's why I have a health care surrogate, living will, etc., set up. Keeping any living thing going beyond natural is a personal issue, if I have a terminal disease, my family knows to remove me from the hospital should I end up there, and let me go naturally.

You wrote:
I don't think they must be respected. You may have the opinion that it's OK to kill your spouse for cheating on you.

Again, you bring up another issue entirely. We can both agree that my cheating spouse is fully human, albiet a shitty human. What we are disagreeing on is if a gathering of cells is fully human.

You wrote:
Should whether the pregnancy is wanted or not have a bearing on WHEN it's OK to abort?

For example, a 22 week old fetus already has lots of human characteristics and can survive on it's own outside the womb. Does being unwanted change that fact?

This is tricky for me. You are talking almost 6 months old (I'm stuck into the age of the fetus being figured by months, yeah, I'm getting old, LOL!). At what point do we deliver as oppose to aborting? Personally, I feel that abortion should be banned at sometime around 5 months with the exception of health reasons. But, as long as that basic right is threatened by those who would ban abortion altogether, I resist drawing the line. As far as I am concerned, 3 months would be fine, plenty of time to figure out you are pregnant, and decide what you must do.

you wrote:
Wow. The person next to you in the grocery store MAY pull out a gun and shoot you. Does that mean you should kill them before they have a chance to do it?

Again, something else altogether. If I *know* they are going to harm me, the clerks are going to have to wipe brains off of the canned peas, though.

You wrote:
No matter how different or extreme the conclusions are? What if a woman at 8 months pregnant, that feels it's not human until it's born, decides to abort. Should we allow that to happen? Should we respect that belief or her right to having her own beliefs?

Sure we must respect her right to believe as she wishes. But we come to delivery or abortion at that point don't you think? At eight months, I think it's a viable human being. It is no longer a few cells.

You wrote:
So now you're telling people they don't have a right to an opinion about the subject until they do something.

Okay, okay...I got pissy. Of course they have a right to their opinion. But, if you want me to take you opinion into serious consideration, show me the courage of your convictions first.

You wrote:
What if I told you that you don't have the right to have an abortion based on the possibilty that it MIGHT destroy your life until you prove that it actually will destroy your life? Would that be fair to you?

Of course not. You cannot force me to live by your opinion. Show ME proof and I will listen. Paint with invisible colors in the air and you just don't have my attention.

You know, I do hope one day we can come to some compromises on this issue. Where we can trust each other with each other. Where we can agree on a cut-off time in pregnancy for abortion and it won't be the beginning of the complete abolishment of that right.

You can abolish abortion all you want, but, you will never make it go away. And abolishing it takes away too much from a woman. Make it illegal again, and it will still go on, because it is too basic a human right.

long winded fool · 12-13-2002, 09:23 AM

"I have a refutation. The reason it's illegal to kill the eagle eggs is simply that the species is so rare. People that collect or destroy the eggs will contribute to the extinction of the species.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the morality of destroying an egg over an adult, but everything to do with the morality of causing an entire species to become extinct."

You're absolutely right. It doesn't have anything to do with morality. And you are right that the golden eagle is in danger of extinction. But ask yourself: Why exactly will destroying the eggs contribute to the extinction of the species?

The point is, a golden eagle egg is the exact same thing as an aquila chrysaetos which is the species of golden eagle. The egg that has even the slightest �potential� to develop into an adult obviously has same value as the adult by law. Since humans aren't an endangered species, do you think that they have less value than golden eagles? Are eagles more protected than humans? If you had the choice to kill either an eagle or a man, why wouldn't you choose the less endangered species?

The reason for comparing humanity to an endangered species is not because of our rarity. We are a federally protected species, giving us value by law and thus, the parallel holds. Since aquila chrysaetos is valuable, it is protected. Since homo sapiens sapiens are MORE valuable, they are more protected. They are not protected for the same reasons, but they are both protected by the federal government. Morality is irrelevant in this argument. I have refuted the argument that murder is killing a human being but not a zygote. The crime of murder is killing any homo sapiens sapiens, not just a developed one. Likewise killing an "eagle" extends from embryo to adult. Zygote is included in the definition of human being by law if an egg is the equivalent of an eagle by law. Therefore to say that humanity develops at some point after conception is not lawfully sound. The law recognizes potential life, therefore it is irrational to allow destruction of an embryo of one protected species and not the embryo of an even more protected species.

While I'm guessing Doubting Didymus understands my argument, I'll try to explain myself better to LordSnooty and the others. It is not my place to convince you that you should love or value a zygote. How you feel about a zygote is none of my business. My argument is that the willful destruction of a zygote is murder under the definition of murder. We have laws in effect that, when understood correctly, demand harsh penalties for the pre-meditated murder of any human being. We have taken a step backward in redefining "human being" to include only a certain portion of the species. You can bristle at the thought of the government telling you what you can and can't do with your body, but it is ultimately the same as the government telling you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home. There are limits to individual freedom, my friends. You can get breast implants, tattoos, liposuction, piercings, and virtually anything else. You can worship any being you wish, you can decorate the interior of your house however you wish, you can even engage in any sexual practice you wish in the privacy of your own home, but you CAN NEVER endanger the life of another human being, even if you are paying for said human being, even if the human lives in your own home, and even if the human lives in your womb. To exclude a fetus is to exclude whomever you find inconvenient. Therefore, your womb IS the government's business once a human being starts developing in it. You obviously can kill it if you wish, but if you are caught, logically you must face murder charges. The fact that this is not the case in this country is a flaw in the legal system and makes the laws irrational, which I think you'll agree is a dangerous precedent to set for our children. If the American people will follow any law, no matter how hypocritical and contradictory, simply because it tells them what they want to hear, then the American people are no longer capable of sound democracy and have become blind sheep awaiting a chaotic and uncontrollable fate. If you can rationally make a set of laws that allow for the destruction of embryos without creating grave contradictions and unintended legal loopholes that remove all real power from the laws of this country, then fine. I haven't thought of a logical way to do this, and neither has anyone else that I know of, therefore I believe that abortion should be illegal. The point is: Don't embrace irrational laws even if they tell you and your friends what you want to hear. Fix the legal system or kiss your freedom goodbye.

MarcoPolo · 12-13-2002, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Puck:
Personally, I believe in letting nature take it's course. Why torture the poor little thing? But if it's your child, I can't make that decision for you.

I agree with that.

Quote:

I don't think they must be respected. You may have the opinion that it's OK to kill your spouse for cheating on you.

Again, you bring up another issue entirely.

Actually, what I was trying to show there is that you always must respect someones RIGHT to have an opinion. You don't HAVE to respect the opinion itself.

Quote:

Personally, I feel that abortion should be banned at sometime around 5 months with the exception of health reasons.

Would the following information change your opinion on when it's OK to abort?

Quote:

From <a href="http://www.sfuhl.org/b_unborn_child_develops.htm" target="_blank">here</a>

Blood vessels start to form very early, about 13-18 days after fertilization. Then, on about the 20th day - nearly the end of the third week - the foundation of the brain, the spinal cord, and the entire nervous system is established.

The eyes begin to develop early in the fourth week after conception. During this extremely critical week the esophagus, gallbladder, liver, lungs, pancreas, pharynx, stomach, and trachea also begin to form. And, toward the end of the week, the nose, tongue, and spleen also start to develop.

The heart begins to beat on about the 22nd day after conception, circulating blood throughout the child. The arms begin to form on about day 26, followed by the beginnings of the legs on day 28, the same day that the mouth opens for the first time. Also on the 28th day, building blocks are present for 40 pairs of muscles that will run from the base of the skull to the bottom of the spinal column.

Quote:

Again, something else altogether. If I *know* they are going to harm me, the clerks are going to have to wipe brains off of the canned peas, though.

Right. But according to what you said ealier, you KNEW that a baby would ruin your life. I'm asking how could you KNOW that?

Quote:

At eight months, I think it's a viable human being. It is no longer a few cells.

At what point do we stop saying it's just a few cells? Can decide an earlier time by using the information above? On the 22nd day after conception, there is a beating heart. That's certainly not just 'a few cells.'

Quote:

Okay, okay...I got pissy.

We all do sometimes. No worries!

Quote:

You know, I do hope one day we can come to some compromises on this issue.

You and me both.

LordSnooty · 12-13-2002, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool:
But ask yourself: Why exactly will destroying the eggs contribute to the extinction of the species?

The point is, a golden eagle egg is the exact same thing as an aquila chrysaetos which is the species of golden eagle. The egg that has even the slightest �potential� to develop into an adult obviously has same value as the adult by law. Since humans aren't an endangered species, do you think that they have less value than golden eagles?

They have exactly the same value, in my book. If humans were becoming extinct, then a human zygote would presumably be valuable, as a golden eagle egg is now. But the egg itself has no intrinsic value, it's simply a case of not losing a beautiful species (people often don't care so much about ugly ones).

Quote:

Are eagles more protected than humans? If you had the choice to kill either an eagle or a man, why wouldn't you choose the less endangered species?

Because humans are of more value to me, as a human, than eagles. That is entirely irrelevant, surely.

Quote:

Zygote is included in the definition of human being by law if an egg is the equivalent of an eagle by law.

I literally cannot believe you said that. You KNOW why eagle eggs are protected - to ensure the continuation of golden eagles as a species. It's nothing to do with assigned 'value'. It's not because the lawmakers equate an egg with an eagle. It's because an egg will become an eagle, and egg collectors pose a serious threat to the survival of the species.

How does this in any way give human zygotes the same value as a human? People don't collect zygotes, as far as I know. They are not rare, they are not endangered. Therefore, they have little or no value. You're wriggling about, trying to make your opinions fit the facts, but it's a square peg and a round hole.

Quote:

While I'm guessing Doubting Didymus understands my argument, I'll try to explain myself better to LordSnooty and the others.

Charming way to write a veiled insult - but none the less, I understand your argument perfectly. The problem is, it's a rubbish argument. It doesn't make sense.

Paul

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: LordSnooty ]

Queen of Swords · 12-13-2002, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by MarcoPolo:
Right. But according to what you said ealier, you KNEW that a baby would ruin your life. I'm asking how could you KNOW that?

I'm not Puck, but I'd like to respond to this. If that's OK with you!

I know that a pregnancy (it doesn't even have to reach the baby stage) would ruin my life because I am underweight and eat barely enough to sustain myself, let alone an embryo. I doubt I have the physical resources to maintain a pregnancy or undergo labor, and I have a legal addiction that would also cause problems. I also live a stressful, hand-to-mouth existence that I am all right with, but which would be turned upside down by a pregnancy; needless to say, the added stress would hardly be conducive to maintaining that pregnancy. I am also not financially capable of undergoing pregnancy. Therefore, an implanted zygote would ruin my life. For all those reasons, I don't intend to risk my life and ruin my health and my mental state in order to deliver a child that stands a good chance of being born with one or more health problems.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]

12-13-2002, 12:13 PM	#150
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by MarcoPolo: <strong>Right. But according to what you said ealier, you KNEW that a baby would ruin your life. I'm asking how could you KNOW that?</strong> I'm not Puck, but I'd like to respond to this. If that's OK with you! I know that a pregnancy (it doesn't even have to reach the baby stage) would ruin my life because I am underweight and eat barely enough to sustain myself, let alone an embryo. I doubt I have the physical resources to maintain a pregnancy or undergo labor, and I have a legal addiction that would also cause problems. I also live a stressful, hand-to-mouth existence that I am all right with, but which would be turned upside down by a pregnancy; needless to say, the added stress would hardly be conducive to maintaining that pregnancy. I am also not financially capable of undergoing pregnancy. Therefore, an implanted zygote would ruin my life. For all those reasons, I don't intend to risk my life and ruin my health and my mental state in order to deliver a child that stands a good chance of being born with one or more health problems. [ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2002, 08:45 AM	#146
Puck Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: A middle aged body. Posts: 3,459	Originally posted by MarcoPolo: Hmmm.. I understand and appreciate the argument you're making, but are you saying literally a million dollars? Of course not. If I give birth to a premmie, and when it's delivered, it can breath, cry in protest and take nurishment, I then have a duty (and want) to nurture that child. Have you ever been in a neo-natal intensive care unit? Have you seen the horrible things they do to babies born way too early? Too early and they have to do a colostomy on it because the intestines will necrotize (proper wording?). It's little body is trying to die in several different ways. Personally, I believe in letting nature take it's course. Why torture the poor little thing? But if it's your child, I can't make that decision for you. You wrote: However, I don't think it would cost any more than keeping an adult that had a stroke alive for months either. That's why I have a health care surrogate, living will, etc., set up. Keeping any living thing going beyond natural is a personal issue, if I have a terminal disease, my family knows to remove me from the hospital should I end up there, and let me go naturally. You wrote: I don't think they must be respected. You may have the opinion that it's OK to kill your spouse for cheating on you. Again, you bring up another issue entirely. We can both agree that my cheating spouse is fully human, albiet a shitty human. What we are disagreeing on is if a gathering of cells is fully human. You wrote: Should whether the pregnancy is wanted or not have a bearing on WHEN it's OK to abort? For example, a 22 week old fetus already has lots of human characteristics and can survive on it's own outside the womb. Does being unwanted change that fact? This is tricky for me. You are talking almost 6 months old (I'm stuck into the age of the fetus being figured by months, yeah, I'm getting old, LOL!). At what point do we deliver as oppose to aborting? Personally, I feel that abortion should be banned at sometime around 5 months with the exception of health reasons. But, as long as that basic right is threatened by those who would ban abortion altogether, I resist drawing the line. As far as I am concerned, 3 months would be fine, plenty of time to figure out you are pregnant, and decide what you must do. you wrote: Wow. The person next to you in the grocery store MAY pull out a gun and shoot you. Does that mean you should kill them before they have a chance to do it? Again, something else altogether. If I know they are going to harm me, the clerks are going to have to wipe brains off of the canned peas, though. You wrote: No matter how different or extreme the conclusions are? What if a woman at 8 months pregnant, that feels it's not human until it's born, decides to abort. Should we allow that to happen? Should we respect that belief or her right to having her own beliefs? Sure we must respect her right to believe as she wishes. But we come to delivery or abortion at that point don't you think? At eight months, I think it's a viable human being. It is no longer a few cells. You wrote: So now you're telling people they don't have a right to an opinion about the subject until they do something. Okay, okay...I got pissy. Of course they have a right to their opinion. But, if you want me to take you opinion into serious consideration, show me the courage of your convictions first. You wrote: What if I told you that you don't have the right to have an abortion based on the possibilty that it MIGHT destroy your life until you prove that it actually will destroy your life? Would that be fair to you? Of course not. You cannot force me to live by your opinion. Show ME proof and I will listen. Paint with invisible colors in the air and you just don't have my attention. You know, I do hope one day we can come to some compromises on this issue. Where we can trust each other with each other. Where we can agree on a cut-off time in pregnancy for abortion and it won't be the beginning of the complete abolishment of that right. You can abolish abortion all you want, but, you will never make it go away. And abolishing it takes away too much from a woman. Make it illegal again, and it will still go on, because it is too basic a human right.

12-13-2002, 09:23 AM	#147
long winded fool Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,113	"I have a refutation. The reason it's illegal to kill the eagle eggs is simply that the species is so rare. People that collect or destroy the eggs will contribute to the extinction of the species. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the morality of destroying an egg over an adult, but everything to do with the morality of causing an entire species to become extinct." You're absolutely right. It doesn't have anything to do with morality. And you are right that the golden eagle is in danger of extinction. But ask yourself: Why exactly will destroying the eggs contribute to the extinction of the species? The point is, a golden eagle egg is the exact same thing as an aquila chrysaetos which is the species of golden eagle. The egg that has even the slightest �potential� to develop into an adult obviously has same value as the adult by law. Since humans aren't an endangered species, do you think that they have less value than golden eagles? Are eagles more protected than humans? If you had the choice to kill either an eagle or a man, why wouldn't you choose the less endangered species? The reason for comparing humanity to an endangered species is not because of our rarity. We are a federally protected species, giving us value by law and thus, the parallel holds. Since aquila chrysaetos is valuable, it is protected. Since homo sapiens sapiens are MORE valuable, they are more protected. They are not protected for the same reasons, but they are both protected by the federal government. Morality is irrelevant in this argument. I have refuted the argument that murder is killing a human being but not a zygote. The crime of murder is killing any homo sapiens sapiens, not just a developed one. Likewise killing an "eagle" extends from embryo to adult. Zygote is included in the definition of human being by law if an egg is the equivalent of an eagle by law. Therefore to say that humanity develops at some point after conception is not lawfully sound. The law recognizes potential life, therefore it is irrational to allow destruction of an embryo of one protected species and not the embryo of an even more protected species. While I'm guessing Doubting Didymus understands my argument, I'll try to explain myself better to LordSnooty and the others. It is not my place to convince you that you should love or value a zygote. How you feel about a zygote is none of my business. My argument is that the willful destruction of a zygote is murder under the definition of murder. We have laws in effect that, when understood correctly, demand harsh penalties for the pre-meditated murder of any human being. We have taken a step backward in redefining "human being" to include only a certain portion of the species. You can bristle at the thought of the government telling you what you can and can't do with your body, but it is ultimately the same as the government telling you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home. There are limits to individual freedom, my friends. You can get breast implants, tattoos, liposuction, piercings, and virtually anything else. You can worship any being you wish, you can decorate the interior of your house however you wish, you can even engage in any sexual practice you wish in the privacy of your own home, but you CAN NEVER endanger the life of another human being, even if you are paying for said human being, even if the human lives in your own home, and even if the human lives in your womb. To exclude a fetus is to exclude whomever you find inconvenient. Therefore, your womb IS the government's business once a human being starts developing in it. You obviously can kill it if you wish, but if you are caught, logically you must face murder charges. The fact that this is not the case in this country is a flaw in the legal system and makes the laws irrational, which I think you'll agree is a dangerous precedent to set for our children. If the American people will follow any law, no matter how hypocritical and contradictory, simply because it tells them what they want to hear, then the American people are no longer capable of sound democracy and have become blind sheep awaiting a chaotic and uncontrollable fate. If you can rationally make a set of laws that allow for the destruction of embryos without creating grave contradictions and unintended legal loopholes that remove all real power from the laws of this country, then fine. I haven't thought of a logical way to do this, and neither has anyone else that I know of, therefore I believe that abortion should be illegal. The point is: Don't embrace irrational laws even if they tell you and your friends what you want to hear. Fix the legal system or kiss your freedom goodbye.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.