That is not an argument. The discussion of abortion is about the personhood of various forms of human life. We could stumble about discussing an embryo as a human being but because that has connotations which confuse it with human person, I will not indulge that. Because what is 100% sure is that the embryo is human life. But it is not a human citizen, it is not a human deep sea diver, it is not a human pilot, it is not a human senior, it is not a human child, it is not a human baby, and it is NOT a human person.
It is a human embryo. In the same fashion an acorn is NOT an oak tree even though it has oak tree DNA. I won't indulge you calling an acorn an oak tree because it sounds stupid and it is stupid.
There are valid and I would say insurmountable reasons why the moral, legal, and philosophical status of embryos remains as human life--but human life without personhood: Human life but without Rights.
You can tell us we need to obey your opinion and call it a different name (would Zog do) and you can tell us we need to grant it the status of personhood. But I can assure you, the laws will not change to reflect any temper tantrums you choose to throw. If you want to change the well-considered opinion of law makers you need to provide an argument. So far you have provided NOTHING. You have merely agreed with me that the embryo is human life. You have not explained to me why all human life should have equal rights such as citizenship, personhood, etc.
The embryo is not a human person. If it were, abortion doctors would be tried for murder instead of being supported in clinics. So don't waste my time telling me they are human persons because they are not. If you have any arguments as to why we should grant them rights of personhood or citizenship or anything at all I would be more than pleased to hear them.
The embryo is in the womb by permission--not by RIGHT. |
