"None of my points are religious, depending on ideas of theology or worship."
"...THAT (religion) is the ONLY rationale that has ever been used or ever can be used to give a moral exemption to human DNA which has no sentience, no consciousness, no values, no interests, no goals, and no existence distinct from sand or granite--while causing death, pain, and suffering to fully conscious creatures with only slightly different dna structures--but (obviously) without our interest in human ends."
Perhaps I have overlooked something critical? Is there something outside of religious dogma (ensoulment and such) which argues the case for allowing society to posit an interest on behalf of a zygote (a zygote that is incapable of any PERSONAL interest) and which thusly diminishes the autonomous rights of the mother? On what basis should any creature without awareness or any personal interest be considered for person-hood? And other than a LACK of awareness, sentience, arms, legs, nervous tissue, brains, minds, and thoughts--indeed a LACK of any and all attributes of a human person other than homo sapien dna...what other lacking, failing, or shortcoming ought to be regarded as compelling reasons for granting PERSONAL rights to this egg--now that we have both agreed that "it has human DNA" was not the point?? |
