Unborn children are just as much persons as you are, and you support the "right" for others to kill them
Embryos are not "persons," Greg. They are human growths with the potential to become persons. They are no more "persons" than my sperm is a "person." My sperm has the potential to become billions of people. Apparently, you believe that something (a soul?) enters the egg when the sperm kisses it, and therefore, I can surmise that you use this as a defining characteristic for "person." I do not, and society does not. A person is more than a sperm, more than an egg, and more than both of them together at the bottom of a test tube floating in fluid. A "person" is more than the fully HUMAN cells I scratch off of my head, or that I brush off of my tongue, even though by nourishing and providing them with a few missing elements, they would have the potential to become persons.
I support the right of "persons" to be free of your interference in the business of their own body.
You brought up the most horrendous case you could think of in an attempt to discredit my views on abortion in general
No Greg, I brought up the case to challenge you to consider what it was you believed in and why, and not just run around spouting off all the time. I brought it up to point out, that for you to be consistent with the "reason" behind your particular opposition to abortion, then you would need to reconcile within your own conscience, the difficult proposition that you MUST oppose each and every abortion, regardless as to whether the babby will be born with grasshopper antennae and six eyes; because as soon as YOU make one exception to this, then YOU are acknowledging your acquiescence to the principle that the subject of abortion may be considered as a HUMAN value judgement, and not as YOU actually DO consider it. Arguing with someone about the human values that ought to prevail, as to when or why an abortion may be performed, is entirely different than addressing the matter with a fanatic who believes (on an entirely unknown basis) that every pregnant woman should be forced to carry the little dividing cells until they become a person.
I consider the exception that you admitted as to permitting abortion to save a woman's life to be stupid and irrational if you consider the embryo as a person. People have equal rights in this world. They gave their lives to establish the principle. Now you would come along and destroy everything humankind has worked for by CHOOSING between people. And not only would you CHOOSE, but you would choose the person who has few years ahead of her in preference to the person who has a whole lifetime of years, and much more potential for the good ahead of it.
You don't just make off the cuff statements like, "the embryo is a person'" without recognizing that such a principle would turn our whole world upside down, and would likely end civilization.
JUDGING, that they would be better off dead.
This may have been much of your struggle as you agonized over your conflicts in a state of unresolvable cognitive dissonance. However, I did not make those judgments. I believe that most religious bodies encourage the principle of screening, where there is increased risk, in order that the mother may receive support and counselling as to what decision she will make. This can be done very early in the pregnancy. My judgment is that it is a choice between a woman and her doctor, and that it has nothing to do with you or with me.
Your flip answer belies your evil heart
Thanks, Greg!
Arguing from a fraction of all abortions that are extreme cases to validate all abortion on demand is a cheap shot, and a non sequitur.
I wasn't arguing at all. I clarified my position on abortion months ago to the thread. I put you in a role play as the woman for the purpose of getting you to seriously examine your beliefs--not mine. I have no need to argue or defend my beliefs. My beliefs (as regards abortion) are mainstream, ethical, and social. I am comfortable with them. I do however have an interest (as I said to you many posts ago) in what "makes YOU tick." Your beliefs run against the corpus of social theory and social law.
Please watch how you use "belies" and "non sequitor." I have not even had a coffee yet. |
