No reason to kill those that you mention
Huh? Maybe no reason that sounds good to you, but the Nazis certainly had reasons to kill the homosexuals and jews. You didn't say good reasons, just reasons. A woman can abort for no reason at all, or even for what we might consider a "bad" reason -- say she had a relationship with a man and they broke up and he is desperate to have a child, hasn't been able to conceive with any other woman, and the woman initially said she wanted the child, and indeed wants to have children, but the man did something to make her mad, so she aborts just to spite the man. Perfectly legal. Is that a better reason than, say, the Western settlers had to kill all the indians in sight? (Indians are another example I didn't bring up before of human beings who were at one time considered non-us, and open to killing for any reason or no reason.)
I find it a stretch to compare minority victims to a fetus with regards to humanity
That's exactly the point. That's precisely what EVERY group who creates an okay-to-kill subset of humans says. This sub-set, they clain, ISN'T humanity so it's a stretch to compare them with "real" people, meaning us. You make my point absolutely. It's just that you have advanced to the point where you are (presumably) willing to move the black slaves, and Indians, and homosexuals, and jews, and women, etc, from the "okay to kill freely" category to the "not okay to kill freely" category. You just haven't advanced far enough to move unborn children there yet.
(You like to call them fetuses to minimize the need to think of them as people. That's a totally predictable use of language. Almost always done to denigrate groups we want not to consider fully human or truly "us"--nigger, kike, injun, savage, jap, hun, queer, jewboy, etc. Pick a name that separates and denigrates and you feel more justified in your separating and denegrating.) |
