by Smitty
Salon again, this time Tracy Clark-Flory, emphasis mine:
On Tuesday morning, Nebraska passed a bill outlawing abortions at 20 weeks based on the belief that fetuses begin to feel pain at that stage.
Couple of questions:
- By what magic means does a fetus become a baby?
- By what additional magic means does nerve tissue incapable of transmitting the information we call ‘pain’ suddenly acquire the ability to do so?
Repeat after me: life is life is life.
The intellectual capacity of humans to create artificial distinctions through the power of language does not, itself, render those artificial distinctions valid.
The logic of some of these people who support abortion is beyond belief. I have actually had arguments with people on the internet who insist that a fetus is “Not really a baby” until it emerges from the birth canal. Well, what was he/she before then-an eggplant, a cucumber?
The logic of some of these people who support abortion is beyond belief. I have actually had arguments with people on the internet who insist that a fetus is “Not really a baby” until it emerges from the birth canal. Well, what was he/she before then-an eggplant, a cucumber?
3/5ths of a person?
3/5ths of a person?
“By what magic means does a fetus become a baby?”
According to the liberals, it’s rather like transubstantiation: The blessing of a priestess of Mother Gaia is required.
A liberal woman who believes in abortion will call the “product of conception” in her uterus “my baby”, if she intends to keep it. Otherwise, it’s a “tissue mass” (like you or I or Mother Theresa) that may be casually disposed of.
“By what magic means does a fetus become a baby?”
According to the liberals, it’s rather like transubstantiation: The blessing of a priestess of Mother Gaia is required.
A liberal woman who believes in abortion will call the “product of conception” in her uterus “my baby”, if she intends to keep it. Otherwise, it’s a “tissue mass” (like you or I or Mother Theresa) that may be casually disposed of.
By what magic means does a fetus become a baby?
Being conceived by a nonprogressive woman or a progressive womyn who just realized she’s pushing 40 and doesn’t want a lap dog around the house instead.
By what additional magic means does nerve tissue incapable of transmitting the information we call ‘pain’ suddenly acquire the ability to do so?
By being able to write long self-involved articles about their every disappointment in life in big city newspapers and ‘edgy’ urban magazines.
By what magic means does a fetus become a baby?
Being conceived by a nonprogressive woman or a progressive womyn who just realized she’s pushing 40 and doesn’t want a lap dog around the house instead.
By what additional magic means does nerve tissue incapable of transmitting the information we call ‘pain’ suddenly acquire the ability to do so?
By being able to write long self-involved articles about their every disappointment in life in big city newspapers and ‘edgy’ urban magazines.
Well, remember: there is no shortage of abortion defenders who will happily argue that drawing its first breath is what transforms a lump of extraneous tissue expelled from a woman’s body, into a baby.
Unless she, you know, decides before then that she wants it to be a baby. But if she’s made that decision and she’s murdered, don’t you dare charge her killer with two counts! Logic? Surely you jest!
And yes, I did just call you Shirley.
Well, remember: there is no shortage of abortion defenders who will happily argue that drawing its first breath is what transforms a lump of extraneous tissue expelled from a woman’s body, into a baby.
Unless she, you know, decides before then that she wants it to be a baby. But if she’s made that decision and she’s murdered, don’t you dare charge her killer with two counts! Logic? Surely you jest!
And yes, I did just call you Shirley.
A few abortion supporters, like Camile Paglia, admit that a fetus is a human being and that abortion is the killing of a life. I disagree with her view point on abortion on demand, but I appreciate her honesty.
A few abortion supporters, like Camile Paglia, admit that a fetus is a human being and that abortion is the killing of a life. I disagree with her view point on abortion on demand, but I appreciate her honesty.
“Well, remember: there is no shortage of abortion defenders who will happily argue that drawing its first breath is what transforms a lump of extraneous tissue expelled from a woman’s body, into a baby.”
I am curious to know how someone who adhered to that mindset would square it with a baby born through a water birth, where that first breath can be significantly delayed, especially since water birth is gaining in popularity.
“Well, remember: there is no shortage of abortion defenders who will happily argue that drawing its first breath is what transforms a lump of extraneous tissue expelled from a woman’s body, into a baby.”
I am curious to know how someone who adhered to that mindset would square it with a baby born through a water birth, where that first breath can be significantly delayed, especially since water birth is gaining in popularity.
Doesn’t a baby breathe before birth, it just breathes amniotic fluid? Isn’t there an artificial fluid that drs. put in preemies lungs to help the lungs mature after delivery? If so, they would still be breathing fluid.
Doesn’t a baby breathe before birth, it just breathes amniotic fluid? Isn’t there an artificial fluid that drs. put in preemies lungs to help the lungs mature after delivery? If so, they would still be breathing fluid.
[…] 2010 Abortion:The Ultimate Atrocity Leave a Comment Tags: Abortion Comes this gem from Smitty! Salon again, this time Tracy Clark-Flory, emphasis mine: On Tuesday morning, Nebraska passed a bill […]
My question for a choicer: “Has any childbirth ever occurred without conception?” I know of none. Therefore, isn’t the moment of conception the first moment of every life?
My question for a choicer: “Has any childbirth ever occurred without conception?” I know of none. Therefore, isn’t the moment of conception the first moment of every life?
None of these criteria is any sillier than the one currently used in most abortion laws: basing the beginning of life on how soon a child can survive outside of its mother with medical intervention – so presumably the beginning of life magically changes based on our current level of medical technology for sustaining premature infants? Any criteria for the beginning of life other than the moment of conception is both silly and completely arbitrary and is obviously done solely for the convenience of whoever is selecting the criteria.
None of these criteria is any sillier than the one currently used in most abortion laws: basing the beginning of life on how soon a child can survive outside of its mother with medical intervention – so presumably the beginning of life magically changes based on our current level of medical technology for sustaining premature infants? Any criteria for the beginning of life other than the moment of conception is both silly and completely arbitrary and is obviously done solely for the convenience of whoever is selecting the criteria.
By what additional magic means does nerve tissue incapable of transmitting the information we call ‘pain’ suddenly acquire the ability to do so?
And by what magic means does a mass of unremarkable cells become a functioning, beating heart when once it never was? When you can answer that question, you can also answer your own.
By what additional magic means does nerve tissue incapable of transmitting the information we call ‘pain’ suddenly acquire the ability to do so?
And by what magic means does a mass of unremarkable cells become a functioning, beating heart when once it never was? When you can answer that question, you can also answer your own.
@Mr. Black,
Oh, fine: play the ambiguity card.
In the mean time, those who tread humbly before the Almighty will continue to label murder as it stands.
Sophistries are a bore.
@Mr. Black,
Oh, fine: play the ambiguity card.
In the mean time, those who tread humbly before the Almighty will continue to label murder as it stands.
Sophistries are a bore.
To declare murder you must first identify a person who was killed. Your apparent wish to avoid the reality that a clump of cells DO NOT equal a person suggests that you don’t really have a good explanation for your beliefs or any original thoughts on the matter, you’re just repeating passed down dogma because that it what you are obliged to do. But then, we both knew that already.
To declare murder you must first identify a person who was killed. Your apparent wish to avoid the reality that a clump of cells DO NOT equal a person suggests that you don’t really have a good explanation for your beliefs or any original thoughts on the matter, you’re just repeating passed down dogma because that it what you are obliged to do. But then, we both knew that already.
@Mr. Black,
Have you noticed, peering at history, that evil frequently attempts to de-humanize an opponent prior to destruction?
Passing down dogma, indeed.
At what point in life does anyone exceed the claim that ‘a clump of cells DO NOT equal a person’? You’re justifying murder here, and others, certainly not you, will extend this attempt at minimization to purge further the gene pool along more desirable lines.
I think the ideas you’re pushing fall somewhere between ‘sick’ and ‘monstrous’, and I pray the Almighty have mercy on your soul, Mr. Black.
@Mr. Black,
Have you noticed, peering at history, that evil frequently attempts to de-humanize an opponent prior to destruction?
Passing down dogma, indeed.
At what point in life does anyone exceed the claim that ‘a clump of cells DO NOT equal a person’? You’re justifying murder here, and others, certainly not you, will extend this attempt at minimization to purge further the gene pool along more desirable lines.
I think the ideas you’re pushing fall somewhere between ‘sick’ and ‘monstrous’, and I pray the Almighty have mercy on your soul, Mr. Black.
I’m quite happy to agree that a fetus is at some point before birth, a human. Quite obviously the day before it is born, it is human. And the day before that, and before that and so on.
On the other hand, on the day of conception that mass of cells is quite clearly NOT human. Nor the day after that, or the day after that, and so on.
And at some point “not a human” becomes “a human”. I don’t claim to know where that point is but I do oppose the idea that as that point is unable to be exactly known, that we should just pretend it doesn’t even exist and take to calling a blob of cells a human, when it clearly isn’t.
I’m quite happy to agree that a fetus is at some point before birth, a human. Quite obviously the day before it is born, it is human. And the day before that, and before that and so on.
On the other hand, on the day of conception that mass of cells is quite clearly NOT human. Nor the day after that, or the day after that, and so on.
And at some point “not a human” becomes “a human”. I don’t claim to know where that point is but I do oppose the idea that as that point is unable to be exactly known, that we should just pretend it doesn’t even exist and take to calling a blob of cells a human, when it clearly isn’t.
@Mr. Black,
I see the quest to draw a distinction, in terms of death/life, between the fertilized egg and the baby as a Holy Grail of Hell.
quite clearly NOT human? Clearly? Was there something other than the 23 chromosomes comprising a human being present? What about your case? Please, tell me what you were before you were a human being. The static information (DNA) that makes you yourself has been present since your mother conceived you.
Your intellectual backhoe digs a mighty pit, sir.
@Mr. Black,
I see the quest to draw a distinction, in terms of death/life, between the fertilized egg and the baby as a Holy Grail of Hell.
quite clearly NOT human? Clearly? Was there something other than the 23 chromosomes comprising a human being present? What about your case? Please, tell me what you were before you were a human being. The static information (DNA) that makes you yourself has been present since your mother conceived you.
Your intellectual backhoe digs a mighty pit, sir.
I see the quest to draw a distinction, in terms of death/life, between the fertilized egg and the baby as a Holy Grail of Hell.
Of course you do, because if science determined the precise moment when such a change occured you’d be forced into recognising a difference that you claim doesn’t exist, a claim that can only be made while we are ignorant of the facts.
Truth and knowledge are your enemies here, something you well know. And that fact alone says much about the nature and purpose of your beliefs.
I see the quest to draw a distinction, in terms of death/life, between the fertilized egg and the baby as a Holy Grail of Hell.
Of course you do, because if science determined the precise moment when such a change occured you’d be forced into recognising a difference that you claim doesn’t exist, a claim that can only be made while we are ignorant of the facts.
Truth and knowledge are your enemies here, something you well know. And that fact alone says much about the nature and purpose of your beliefs.
if science determined the precise moment when such a change occurred
you’d be forced into recognising a difference
that you claim doesn’t exist,
a claim that can only be made while we are ignorant of the facts.
Can you re-state that? Even breaking it up into clauses, my feeble brain parses what you wrote to mean that your argument only holds up while we are ignorant of facts.
Truth is my enemy here? I would expect you to make some post-modernist claim that truth is a social construct, and absolute truth non-existent.
But if you know the truth, by all means start with that, and derive the conclusion that killing the unborn is acceptable, and prove yourself as anything other than a troll.
if science determined the precise moment when such a change occurred
you’d be forced into recognising a difference
that you claim doesn’t exist,
a claim that can only be made while we are ignorant of the facts.
Can you re-state that? Even breaking it up into clauses, my feeble brain parses what you wrote to mean that your argument only holds up while we are ignorant of facts.
Truth is my enemy here? I would expect you to make some post-modernist claim that truth is a social construct, and absolute truth non-existent.
But if you know the truth, by all means start with that, and derive the conclusion that killing the unborn is acceptable, and prove yourself as anything other than a troll.
Can you re-state that? Even breaking it up into clauses, my feeble brain parses what you wrote to mean that your argument only holds up while we are ignorant of facts.
No sir, yours is the argument that can only exist while science is ignorant of the facts, a point I am sure you fully understood the first time.
A blob of cells has no identifiably human traits, other than DNA. One cannot “murder” DNA. One murders a sentient being and a blob of cells does not have the physical structure required for sentience. If you wish to claim that a blob of cells has sentience through a soul then you are introducing religion and superstition into an area of public policy and as a fellow conservative I’m sure you’ll recognise the danger of privilaging religious views in law. There may even be something in the constitution about it.
Can you re-state that? Even breaking it up into clauses, my feeble brain parses what you wrote to mean that your argument only holds up while we are ignorant of facts.
No sir, yours is the argument that can only exist while science is ignorant of the facts, a point I am sure you fully understood the first time.
A blob of cells has no identifiably human traits, other than DNA. One cannot “murder” DNA. One murders a sentient being and a blob of cells does not have the physical structure required for sentience. If you wish to claim that a blob of cells has sentience through a soul then you are introducing religion and superstition into an area of public policy and as a fellow conservative I’m sure you’ll recognise the danger of privilaging religious views in law. There may even be something in the constitution about it.
a point I am sure you fully understood the first time
No. I would not waste your time and insult your intelligence by mis-characterizing my understanding of your assertion. That would be dishonest.
One cannot “murder” DNA. One murders a sentient being and a blob of cells does not have the physical structure required for sentience.
That was not a blob of cells in Momma Black’s womb: that was _you_. If you can casually de-humanize yourself or your offspring in support of bloody-minded acts, then all I can do is pray for you.
…you are introducing religion and superstition into an area of public policy and as a fellow conservative I’m sure you’ll recognise the danger of privilaging religious views in law. There may even be something in the constitution about it.
If I’m protecting my wallet from incursions by a secular humanist faith, I’m quite confident in my basis for doing so. Twisting the Establishment Clause, which precludes a state church, into a separation of faith and culture is quite a gross thing.
I can buy off on a libertarian read of the Constitution. The Constitution is a Federal document. Wombs are not Federal. Thus, if a State wants a baby abbatoir on every corner, I can pray for them, too. But I object bitterly and will oppose all attempts to make me fund a running holocaust for the unborn. It’s sick, immoral, and likely to draw judgement upon the debased residents of such a State.
Mr. Black, your materialistic sophistries do not offer any justification for destroying life. We may be at an impasse. I think your position utterly false, and I daresay you feel the same about mine. But if you want, we can continue to talk past each other.
Cheers,
Chris
a point I am sure you fully understood the first time
No. I would not waste your time and insult your intelligence by mis-characterizing my understanding of your assertion. That would be dishonest.
One cannot “murder” DNA. One murders a sentient being and a blob of cells does not have the physical structure required for sentience.
That was not a blob of cells in Momma Black’s womb: that was _you_. If you can casually de-humanize yourself or your offspring in support of bloody-minded acts, then all I can do is pray for you.
…you are introducing religion and superstition into an area of public policy and as a fellow conservative I’m sure you’ll recognise the danger of privilaging religious views in law. There may even be something in the constitution about it.
If I’m protecting my wallet from incursions by a secular humanist faith, I’m quite confident in my basis for doing so. Twisting the Establishment Clause, which precludes a state church, into a separation of faith and culture is quite a gross thing.
I can buy off on a libertarian read of the Constitution. The Constitution is a Federal document. Wombs are not Federal. Thus, if a State wants a baby abbatoir on every corner, I can pray for them, too. But I object bitterly and will oppose all attempts to make me fund a running holocaust for the unborn. It’s sick, immoral, and likely to draw judgement upon the debased residents of such a State.
Mr. Black, your materialistic sophistries do not offer any justification for destroying life. We may be at an impasse. I think your position utterly false, and I daresay you feel the same about mine. But if you want, we can continue to talk past each other.
Cheers,
Chris
That was not a blob of cells in Momma Black’s womb
But it was. I didn’t come into being as a person until I gained my own sentience. For how can I be a person without a brain? How can anyone?
Can we agree that your claim of murder rest entirely on the idea that the blob of cells possesses a soul and not a sentience and that it is this soul that is “murdered”? For I feel if we can do that much then the argument becomes clear. The particular religious superstitions that you adhere to inform your views on what constitutes murder where as I, not having any religious faith am not bound to see mere DNA as a sentient life form.
That was not a blob of cells in Momma Black’s womb
But it was. I didn’t come into being as a person until I gained my own sentience. For how can I be a person without a brain? How can anyone?
Can we agree that your claim of murder rest entirely on the idea that the blob of cells possesses a soul and not a sentience and that it is this soul that is “murdered”? For I feel if we can do that much then the argument becomes clear. The particular religious superstitions that you adhere to inform your views on what constitutes murder where as I, not having any religious faith am not bound to see mere DNA as a sentient life form.
I didn’t come into being as a person until I gained my own sentience.
You are using terms such as ‘being’, ‘person’, and ‘sentience’ here as if they had clearly defined, unambiguous meanings of a mathematical nature. This is not the case, and if you can nail down these terms in a precise way, then please do so. Unfortunately, too many people are committed to obscuring them in various ways.
Can we agree that your claim of murder rest entirely on the idea that the blob of cells possesses a soul and not a sentience and that it is this soul that is “murdered”? For I feel if we can do that much then the argument becomes clear. The particular religious superstitions that you adhere to inform your views on what constitutes murder where as I, not having any religious faith am not bound to see mere DNA as a sentient life form.
If you can derive an universally unambiguous meaning for life, i.e. covering all people for all time, then you have the stature to denigrate anyone’s faith as ‘religious superstition’. But all arguments to which your label is attached end up being mystical ones, and are truly a slippery slope. The country is in better shape when we all keep a weather eye one the line of demarcation between intellectual and mystical arguments.
The static information that differentiates Mr. Black from Smitty was present when sperm contacted egg, however many years ago. I would characterize your being/person/sentience line or argument as dynamic information. Note the assertion that personality traits are pure ‘nurture’. Put in these relatively baggage-free terms, your argument would seem to be that it’s OK to eliminate the static information, as long as you do so prior to the event that precipitates insertion of dynamic information, i.e. birth.
There, see? I can make a purely abstract, context-free argument too. And yet I don’t think I’ve even begun to capture ‘life’, as I experience it. What I have experienced of life is that the negative things in life are frequently predicated on narrowing the scope of decisions to some fine point in time, factoring out the past, future and any hint of context to the point that some deed seems acceptable. Then you put that deed back in context and realize, with horror, that something unspeakable has been wrought.
It seems much simpler, unambiguous, and acceptable to me to consider life as occuring when the static information comprising a person is present, and cells begin to divide. Life continues until those cells are done dividing, frequently around the time the heart quits beating, in an event even Christopher Hitchens would agree is called death. I grasp that many want to muddy the water with other, (to me) artificial distinctions, devices, and definitions. Where I feel it politically acceptable to dig in and resist is when they want to tax my wallet to underwrite their actions. At that point, I feel I’m being made party, however slight, to unacceptable action.
If we can agree to keep the Federal Constitution federal, i.e. out of our underwear, wallets, health care, education, retirement, etc., then we have a means whereby we can allow States to figure out where these individual lines are drawn, irrespective of core guarantees found in Federal amendments.
The idea that you would have supported your mother killing you as long as you were only static information is as unacceptable to me as her killing you now. This is a core value I hold, even if you want to insult it by calling it a ‘particular religious superstition’. Politically, it behooves us to figure out how to support coexistence of diametrically opposed positions.
I didn’t come into being as a person until I gained my own sentience.
You are using terms such as ‘being’, ‘person’, and ‘sentience’ here as if they had clearly defined, unambiguous meanings of a mathematical nature. This is not the case, and if you can nail down these terms in a precise way, then please do so. Unfortunately, too many people are committed to obscuring them in various ways.
Can we agree that your claim of murder rest entirely on the idea that the blob of cells possesses a soul and not a sentience and that it is this soul that is “murdered”? For I feel if we can do that much then the argument becomes clear. The particular religious superstitions that you adhere to inform your views on what constitutes murder where as I, not having any religious faith am not bound to see mere DNA as a sentient life form.
If you can derive an universally unambiguous meaning for life, i.e. covering all people for all time, then you have the stature to denigrate anyone’s faith as ‘religious superstition’. But all arguments to which your label is attached end up being mystical ones, and are truly a slippery slope. The country is in better shape when we all keep a weather eye one the line of demarcation between intellectual and mystical arguments.
The static information that differentiates Mr. Black from Smitty was present when sperm contacted egg, however many years ago. I would characterize your being/person/sentience line or argument as dynamic information. Note the assertion that personality traits are pure ‘nurture’. Put in these relatively baggage-free terms, your argument would seem to be that it’s OK to eliminate the static information, as long as you do so prior to the event that precipitates insertion of dynamic information, i.e. birth.
There, see? I can make a purely abstract, context-free argument too. And yet I don’t think I’ve even begun to capture ‘life’, as I experience it. What I have experienced of life is that the negative things in life are frequently predicated on narrowing the scope of decisions to some fine point in time, factoring out the past, future and any hint of context to the point that some deed seems acceptable. Then you put that deed back in context and realize, with horror, that something unspeakable has been wrought.
It seems much simpler, unambiguous, and acceptable to me to consider life as occuring when the static information comprising a person is present, and cells begin to divide. Life continues until those cells are done dividing, frequently around the time the heart quits beating, in an event even Christopher Hitchens would agree is called death. I grasp that many want to muddy the water with other, (to me) artificial distinctions, devices, and definitions. Where I feel it politically acceptable to dig in and resist is when they want to tax my wallet to underwrite their actions. At that point, I feel I’m being made party, however slight, to unacceptable action.
If we can agree to keep the Federal Constitution federal, i.e. out of our underwear, wallets, health care, education, retirement, etc., then we have a means whereby we can allow States to figure out where these individual lines are drawn, irrespective of core guarantees found in Federal amendments.
The idea that you would have supported your mother killing you as long as you were only static information is as unacceptable to me as her killing you now. This is a core value I hold, even if you want to insult it by calling it a ‘particular religious superstition’. Politically, it behooves us to figure out how to support coexistence of diametrically opposed positions.
It seems much simpler, unambiguous, and acceptable to me to consider life as occuring when the static information comprising a person is present, and cells begin to divide.
It is that search for simplicity in complexity that so often trips up the religious. How often in history have we been told that the answer was “god did it” in an attempt to put an explanation into events that intellect could not yet explain.
I fear you make the same error here, applying simplicity by declaring that an egg is actually a person so that you may avoid dealing the the complex relality – that an egg will one day be a person but that day is not the day of conception.
Let us be frank about the facts here.
At the moment of conception, an egg has no human characteristics at all. No brain, no thought, no heart, no nervous system and so on. At this initial stage of development the egg is no different from skin cells or liver cells. It is just a blob of genetic material, albeit with unique potential.
Your initial question, how do nerves magically go from not transmitting pain to transmitting pain does not require magic at all of course. It requires cell development and specialisation because in early development there are no nerves and thus no pain, in fact there is no difference between the cells at all.
I would think that so far we are in agreement.
Our point of disagreement seems to be that you insist on calling this blob of cells with no human characteristics a person, where as I wait until the blob of cells is a person with definable human traits before naming it as such.
Have I summed up your position correctly?
It seems much simpler, unambiguous, and acceptable to me to consider life as occuring when the static information comprising a person is present, and cells begin to divide.
It is that search for simplicity in complexity that so often trips up the religious. How often in history have we been told that the answer was “god did it” in an attempt to put an explanation into events that intellect could not yet explain.
I fear you make the same error here, applying simplicity by declaring that an egg is actually a person so that you may avoid dealing the the complex relality – that an egg will one day be a person but that day is not the day of conception.
Let us be frank about the facts here.
At the moment of conception, an egg has no human characteristics at all. No brain, no thought, no heart, no nervous system and so on. At this initial stage of development the egg is no different from skin cells or liver cells. It is just a blob of genetic material, albeit with unique potential.
Your initial question, how do nerves magically go from not transmitting pain to transmitting pain does not require magic at all of course. It requires cell development and specialisation because in early development there are no nerves and thus no pain, in fact there is no difference between the cells at all.
I would think that so far we are in agreement.
Our point of disagreement seems to be that you insist on calling this blob of cells with no human characteristics a person, where as I wait until the blob of cells is a person with definable human traits before naming it as such.
Have I summed up your position correctly?
Have I summed up your position correctly?
No. You say:
At the moment of conception, an egg has no human characteristics at all.
This strikes me as magical. If it lacks all human characteristics, then how does the human become a human? Your argument seems predicated on inserting an artificial point of inflection on the development curve. Somehow, by application of legal pixie dust, we go from ‘blob of cells’ to ‘person’.
The point of the mental gymnastics, reducing life to ‘genetic material’, seem to be to justify the unspeakable.
It is absolutely true that, at conception, vocal chords and lungs have not developed to give voice to the desire for life. But casually ending that life seems as reasonable as taxing that life. Yet we cheerfully do both.
It is just a blob of genetic material, albeit with unique potential.
No, really, if it’s all just genetic material, then let’s go fully Logan’s Run, have the State be god and just treat society as a big ant colony. The materialistic reduction required to support your argument discards the human soul, and, with that, any teleological point to life. In short: why bother? And I mean that in all seriousness, not flippantly.
Have I summed up your position correctly?
No. You say:
At the moment of conception, an egg has no human characteristics at all.
This strikes me as magical. If it lacks all human characteristics, then how does the human become a human? Your argument seems predicated on inserting an artificial point of inflection on the development curve. Somehow, by application of legal pixie dust, we go from ‘blob of cells’ to ‘person’.
The point of the mental gymnastics, reducing life to ‘genetic material’, seem to be to justify the unspeakable.
It is absolutely true that, at conception, vocal chords and lungs have not developed to give voice to the desire for life. But casually ending that life seems as reasonable as taxing that life. Yet we cheerfully do both.
It is just a blob of genetic material, albeit with unique potential.
No, really, if it’s all just genetic material, then let’s go fully Logan’s Run, have the State be god and just treat society as a big ant colony. The materialistic reduction required to support your argument discards the human soul, and, with that, any teleological point to life. In short: why bother? And I mean that in all seriousness, not flippantly.
Lets say that my religion states that god only delivers a soul to a baby when it takes its first breath and that before that it shares the soul of its mother. Thus an abortion is no different from getting a haircut in my gods view.
Now give that is the case, explain to me why your religious view deserves to be made law or deserves any kind of recognition what-so-ever while mine doesn’t?