Were a strange genetic defect to occur where one could keep an embryo alive, for many years, yet this embryo partially developed would not divide further and would remain the same as it was, would you argue for keeping it alive?
Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, it is manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
What you are describing is not alive unless it is frozen in liquid nitrogen in which case, it is no defect but rather something that we have done to it deliberately, in which case, we have a responsibility to it.
Another question. If obviously a fetus is NOT a developed human being.
Obviously an infant is not a developed human being either. It is more developed than an embryo but far less developed than an adult and yet, it enjoys the protection of the law. Clearly, if the level of maturity is the justification for killing unborns our justification is very hypocritical.
It has no idea of self, no memories. It is no different from any other living being. But then we're not adverse to killing things. We kill animals to eat, we kill bacteria because it spoils our food (pasteurization) we kill fish, mosquitos (because they annoy us, this is ok, right?)
We are natural creatures and live within a food chain. Our physiology is clearly that of an omnivore with a predelection towards being a predator. I don't deny what we are. We, however, have the ability to recognize our place in the natural world and live in it in a way that is different from the creatures we share it with. That recognition does not change what we are. We kill plants as well and there is some research that suggests consiousness or awareness of some sort even in plants. If you are objecting to killing to live, you must include plants as well. You must kill to survive or die. And as I have said, I have no problem at all with a woman terminating a pregnancy if it is for her survival. That is, if the pregnancy is going to kill her or ruin her long term health.
These are in the same category of the fetus EXCEPT that the fetus shares the same DNA as we do as being of the species Homosapien.
That is like saying that a dog is the same as a human being except that the dog is a dog. My position is simple and unassailable. At the present time, abortion is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment of the constitution states that none of us has to forfiet our lives without the due process of the law. Unbonrs are as human as any of the rest of us and the nature of our legal system is such that if they are to be denied the right to live, then it is up to the houses of congress to write laws that deny them the right to live and explain in detail why they are being denied the right.
However the thoughts of an undeveloped embryo are no more intelligent than that of a fly, in fact it is likely less. The only difference is the possibility of intellect, the possibility that one day it will be self-realized, the possibility that it will become a person. But all this is irrelevant since you are discussing the LIFE of an embryo. There is nothing any more human about it, beyond the fact that we all once were an embryo, we all share DNA, and nothing MORE.
Look in any legal dictionary. In the eyes of the law, all one need be, in order to be a person is a human being. Or a certain type of corporate entity but I don't think you are arguing that unborns are corporations.
Newborns have the possibility of intellect as they certainly don't have any at birth and newborns certainly aren't "self realized" but it is accepted that they are persons. Again, if lack of self realization and intellect are the justification for aborting unborns, our justifications are hypocritical becuse newborns have neither of these either but do enjoy the protection of the law.
This being said I don't like the idea of third trimester abortions at all (unless life is at risk) But there is no way someone can convince me that an undeveloped HUMAN can be considered on the same terms as a person.
In the eyes of the law (and the law is what is important here) if one is a human being, then one is a person. Human being and person are one in the same. The fact that you are unable to wrap your mind around that concept doesn't really matter. As I have stated before, there are concepts in quantum physics that I can't wrap my mind around but my inability to grasp doesn't change the fact.
Please while you try and keep asserting you are "emotionless / cold" I don't find you that way, I find you full of angry rage fueled by something religious on the back burner.
What I believe is irrelavent to what is. I am able to argue my case more than adequately without bringing my beliefs into it. Generally speaking, one can only do that when one is right. It is the pro choice side that is reduced to what if's, and strange senarios, and logical gyrations that are at best laughable.
And yes, I am angry. I was angry over the treatment of blacks in the 1950's and 1960's. Weren't you or wouldn't you have been? Had I lived during the time of slavery, I would have been angry then as well. Wouldn't you have been? Considering that abortion is the most egregious human rights violation of our time, I find myself questioning the character and ethics of anyone who isn't angry. If you would have been angry during the '50's and '60's and during the days of slavery because human beings were being denied their rights based on no more than the color of their skin, why exactly would you not be outraged today because the unborn are being denied their rights based on no more than their age and level of development? Is racism wrong but ageism OK in your book?
You without saying it are insisting that a human is formed at fertilization (thus has a soul, and requires the same respect) unless this is removed from the argument, and a valid reasoning is given I close the book on you, as I cannot further digest the nonsense.
I don't know anything about when we get souls. Do you? If your claim is that it is ok to kill unborns because they don't have souls but we can't kill infants because they do, I am going to need for you to tell me exactly when we get souls.
I have provided ample credible, peer reviewed science that states, without reservation, that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. If you can provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a human being, you have an argument. My bet is that you won't be able to provide even one piece of credible science however.
And I can't say that I blame you for looking for an exit from this discussion. It is clear that you are not going to be able to make your case. Just look the ridiculous position your argument has put you in. I have never mentione souls and have never even suggested that any of us have souls. You injected souls into the conversation and then claim that if I won't stop talking about souls, then you are going to close the book on the discussion. Can you see what is wrong with this picture?
If you have come to the realization that you are not going to be able to effectvely argue your case and want an out, I can understand that but don't suggest that if I won't stop talking about souls (when it is you who is talking about souls) that you are going to leave the conversation.
