<<<A baby is not "human" until birth at least.>>>
Sure it is. That's transparent results-oriented thinking. You've revealed that by talking not about an embryo or a fetus, but a 'baby.' By the time it's become a 'baby,' it's a human being. (There are many here who engage in the same species of results-oriented thinking to the end of obtaining another result-- they refer to cell-clusters as 'babies.')
The hard part in this issue, as in so many in life, is drawing lines. Here the problem is to draw a humane one between the state forcing women to gestate embryos involuntarily until those cell-clusters become helpless, dependent, and often-unwanted babies (or orphaned, AIDS-infected, starving children with maggots crawling in and out of their nostrils because they are too weak to brush away the flies heading for their sinuses), and allowing citizens an unregulated right to perform abortions so late that they cause nurses to run weeping from the operating theater.
I think we can figure out something that doesn't cause decent people to weep either at the abused, unwanted, or starving child or the gasping 25 week fetus.
Your position is, to me, the ethical equivalent of the 'ensoulment' one. To me, it translates to a rejection of logic, empathy and mercy in favor of religious or social ideology.
IMO. |
