>Second, on RU-486, you seem not to have answered the question. The problem is this. By the time you have used RU-486 there is a *chance* that you have a embryo consisting of dozens of cells that will be killed by the drug.<
Yes. I did not answer the question as I deemed it stupid. A stupid question...
But for you, I will answer the question. If the intent of the user of anything is to destroy the human conceptus, and if that conceptus has indeed been destroyed as a result of the intent, then he who harbored the intent and who executed or was complicit in the execution of the conceptus, has committed murder.
>Now the Right (the Right on this issue, not everyone on the Right in general) seems to basically feel that a fetus is a human no matter how undeveloped it is, even down to a few cells. I am surprised that you would not take the point of view that use of RU-486 is abortion and thus murder.<
A human conceptus is to a human adult what a water molecule is to a gallon of water. A solitary water molecule is perhaps not enough to drink, but it is indeed water. A human conceptus is not enough to think, but it is indeed human. The difference between the conceptus and the adult is mere development, and if we arrogate to ourselves the power to judge the non-humanity of the conceptus on the basis of mere development, then we have logical power to declare the non-humanity of any human being, even those who are born; and here we see that the link between abortion and euthanasia is profound.
We do not have power to determine who is not human, and in that the conceptus is certifiably not a cabbage or a sausage, and in that it possesses all the biochemical qualities of a human, it seems self-evident that it is human, a human that like we all, is on the continuum of human development.
Because development is a smooth continuum, it is a solitary, indivisible unit and must be accepted as such. If we refuse to accept it as such, choosing to condemn to death certain human organisms on the continuum and choosing to save others, the choice is by necessity arbitrary. We see then that if we destroy any human organism on the continuum, the very same logic used to destroy it can, and I dare say eventually will, be used to destroy any other (this means you and I). In other words, to embrace the abortion doctrine, is to embrace self-destruction.
I want to encourage you, sir, to sit with yourself and think hard on this issue. Try and think a century into the future, and try to imagine the necessary logical ramifications of the abortion doctrine, as it comes into contact with anticipated technology, commerce and economics. The casual approach we use to systematically butcher untold millions of children today, will likely be extended to all sorts of people in the future, and there exists no logic to forbid it. This is why I utterly detest the pro-abortion liberal agenda, and is why for me this issue alone, is enough to force me to vote against the politician who embraces abortion. Principle mandates I do so.
>And wouldn't you also consider women who drink and smoke and thus inadvertently terminate hundreds of thousands of such embryos a year to be murderers. And men who allow second hand smoke to reach their children and potentially pregnant wives as well? Why or why not? Explain, please.<
The answer is obvious. While women who drink and smoke while pregnant are acting foolishly, if their intent is not to destroy the conceptus, then we cannot claim they committed murder. What they have done is perhaps analogous to forming a habit of backing their cars out of their garages without first checking to see if their children are behind the cars. On the other hand, if by use of these substances they intend to harm the conceptus, and if they are successful in carrying out their aims, then they have committed murder. This would perhaps be analogous to knowing a child is behind the car, and then willfully backing the car over the child. In any reasonable moral analysis of an action, we must consider the motive of the person committing the action. |
