To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (314024 ) 12/23/2024 10:28:34 AM From: Lane3 2 RecommendationsRecommended By CentralParkRanger Doo
Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 364277 I simply fed back to you the implication of your argument. A word salad mumbo jumbo. What you see as mumbo jumbo is your inability to differentiate, to make logical distinctions. I understand that that looks like mush to you but that's not on me. The right to life is a self evident right. The right to life is the right to retain the life that one has, to not be killed. It is not the right to be brought to life. You insist on treating as an entity with standing that which has not yet been established as a discrete entity with the capacity to hold that standing. To me it is self evident that no living human today does not have forbears who raped or was the product of incest. Maybe. But the only thing rape has to do with this discussion is that rape is one way to brutally deprive someone of agency and dignity, one that is illegal. It does not affect the status of the cells created as a result. You want to parse some meaning of when a unique human life begins. It begins at conception. I understand that. And one can reasonably give some moral consideration to the cells that are thus created. "Some moral consideration," however, is not the same as the legal standing accorded to actual persons, standing that allows them to trump the rights of an actual person. Those cells are human and they ain't nothing but it will be a while before they are a discrete entity. It the case of mother or child survival I would give the mother the right to chose. Well, that's a milestone of sorts. Good for you. Might want to next give some thought to changing the word, give, to something more passive, less authoritarian or patronizing, like recognize or acknowledge.