I think suffering . . . defining a fertilized egg as a "person" is
magical, irrational thinking, religious in nature,
You are entitled to think that. But even though you claim to be nonreligious, I think defining a full set of human genes implanted in a womb and needing only time to develop into a baby as a non-person is also a religious belief.
Is the fetus a person? I really don't know. What is a person? At certain times and to certain cultures, jews weren't human. To some, perhaps, they aren't. They may have human genes and human forms, but they're not people.
I reject that argument totally. But when asked why, I have difficulty answering without invoking religious, in the broadest sense, principles.
Throughout history, have all slaveholders considered their slaves people? Our constution, after all, counted them as only, what, 3/5 of people? I forget the exact number, but certainly as less than full people.
Deciding what form of human life is and is not a person is no easy task.
Personally, since I don't know, I give the benefit of the doubt to saying "yes" rather than "no" when there is a question. I think that is the most humane thing to do. It has nothing to do with religious belief, and everything to do with the risks of being wrong. |
