Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bababooyee
We were all zygotes. We were all embryos. We were all fetuses. We were all infants. We were all toddlers. Etc.
So, how do you know that conception does not define a human being with potential versus merely a potential human being?
That is the point.
Depends what kind of proof you require, how you define life, and whether you reverse engineer your reasoning from a pre-determined conclusion (ie instead of the proper, rational way for approaching a problem) Moreover, the problems is that you are looking solely to science (in its current manifestation) to answer a question that is philosophical in nature. When does life begins can only be approached once you determine what constitutes "life" in the first place.
Also, if I contend that life begins at conception, then it is only natural that I would insist that one human being not end the life of another human being. Should I not insist that you forgo murdering your neighbor? It is the same thing for pro-lifers.
Further, if I contend that I am not exactly sure when life begins, it is natural that I insist that we favor life beginning as early as conception in order to avoid any mistakes. Even in our criminal system, at least ideally, we (try) to err on the side of life, freedom, etc. Should I not insist on this as well?
Why not? When does life really begin?
|
your points are obviously well thought out while still being the standard pro-life fare. both sides have legitimate arguments for the vailidity of their stance, which is why i much prefer a hands-off approach of everyone taking care to make their own decisions. it is simply not black and white like killing a police officer is. that is a human being. we can all agree on that. we can all agree that doing that is wrong. see. black. and. white. so comparing abortion to murder and using the criminal justice system as an example is inherently flawed logic (which you seem to think i am incapable of grasping thanks to your little 'reverse-engineering' dig above. i enjoyed that one.)
i cannot fathom thinking that way. i cannot fathom that the product of conception is somehow as valuable as a human being as you or i. why? because it is not a human being. it is not a sentient, able human being. it really is that simple.
the abortion discussion/debate is such old hat for me and isn't really interesting -- but this all came out of the SD law that got voted down yesterday. the problem with that is that there is no health exception, no rape exception, no incest exception, and no way to twist the wording of the law to pretend that those exceptions exist in any way. that's simply unenlightened thinking. we're worried about "killing" clusters of multiplying cells, but we're not worried about ruining the life of an ACTUAL, LIVING HUMAN BEING by forcing her to carry her rapist's baby to term?
that's cruel. plain and simple. so basically this bill says some lives are more important than others. and i just cannot figure out how something that could not survive on its own is worth more than a human being? beats me.
let's make crazy examples now. if pro-lifers are so concerned with masses of cells being "human beings" then by all means I don't understand how they shower, brush their teeth or do anything that would otherwise kill bacteria or other microorganisms. life is life is life, right? if we essentially evolved from monkeys, then who are we to assume that the bacteria in your mouth is not the root of the next step in evolution? can you for sure refute that? then you're a killer too so get off your horse. i contend you should stop brushing your teeth and showering because you cannot say for 100% sure that there is no basis to this ridiculous argument i have just made.
sound stupid and illogical to you? that's how "life starts at conception" arguments by and large sound to me.