I agree. To me the determining factor argument in which a human right to life only begins at the point of viability outside the womb misses the mark.
I think some are still not grasping the boundaries and magnitude of the "persuasion project" The Right is potentially unwrapping here.
www.theblaze.com
Man has always had a tendency to be his own god. He can justify any position he wants, any compromise of principles and values. It‘s difficult to stand up for what is right when the whole world is against it. (Oops…there I go pulling Jesus into this conversation).
Your birth mother was a smart woman for letting somebody else deal with your antics.
headlineusa.com
Morloch approves this...Satanists Plan Court Challenge Claiming Abortion a Religious Ritual - Headline USA
(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) The Satanic Temple has released a statement saying they will fight the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade, joining Democrats, baby-killers and alt-left radicals in opposition to preserving life, according to the Gateway Pundit. The statement was released in a Tweet...
Your birth mother was a smart woman for letting somebody else deal with your antics.
Now WE have to deal with you!
Did the founders think of a fertilized human egg as a person?It would seem that only those who wish to deny the inherent right to life of that human being in the zygote stage of development attempt to use extra-scientific means to deny that right. Why might that be?
The default state is that all humans are created equal and are endowed with certain, unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would that living human being not have the right to life that is inherent and unalienable?
What reason do you have for conferring the same rights to a zygote? The only people insisting that rights must confer at conception is religious people. Scientists don't make that argument. Atheists don't make that argument. It's an arbitrary requirement that you've put on it.
Does not follow.
Well at least we both agree with that.
I think you really need to figure out what I'm actually arguing because you keep arguing against points I'm not making. I have not claimed that our laws should be based on sentience. I brought that up in service of the point that insisting "life" (a right to life) at conception is ideologically or religiously based. I've never said laws should be based on "Sentience".
Yours is not a scientific argument. As I said, you're using a definition of a fertilized egg, backed by scientific discovery, to claim rights. I could easily point out the scientific literature that says when a fetus can generally feel pain, and use that as a basis for conferring rights. And you'd claim that's not "scientific". And that would be as true for that as it is for conception. It's an arbitrary placement of rights based on some point in a pregnancy. It's the point that is scientifically based, but not the assigning of human rights. And that's really the only point I intend to argue with this line of reasoning. That it's subjective, and that to get at conception, requries some other belief, religious or ideological.
What did the founders mean? I suspect not. But the Declaration of Independence doesn't confirm or deny that unborn children are included, or that especially, from conception. As well, the 14th amendment neither confirms or denies that unborn children are included. It's my contention that it is a subjective matter, and thus is of a more local importance one way or the other. It's an issue for the different states to determine for their own constituents.
It's an arbitrary decision to make the point where rights confer on the unborn to be at conception, without a soul or some other such concept. You could argue that it's as good a place as any, since it's certain that no mistakes could be made. But there are other testable milestones as well.
If you're fine with humanity continuing on a perpetual cycle of murder and genocide against whichever group is deemed to be the less-than-humans of the day, then there's no reason why. If you'd rather live in a society where your right to life is not dependent on the next direction the winds of societal change start to blow, then there's a very good reason to seek a consistent definition of human life.
It has to have a "moral" definition. Again, no one is arguing that a zygote is alive and has human dna. But there is plenty of arguments about when rights confer to unborn children. That's why this is a controversial issue. You keep making the reductive argument that zygote, for all practical purposes is the right place, scientifically, when science has made no such indication. It's an argument unique to certain religious groups.
You got your panties twisted over it because of the importance you place on it, most likely based on your religious and moral beliefs. So I guess I can forgive you for saying I'm being insincere.
Satanists Plan Court Challenge Claiming Abortion a Religious Ritual - Headline USA
(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) The Satanic Temple has released a statement saying they will fight the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade, joining Democrats, baby-killers and alt-left radicals in opposition to preserving life, according to the Gateway Pundit. The statement was released in a Tweet...
