No one forced her to have sex. 99% of abortions are from voluntary sex. People know when they have sex there is a possibility another human being will be conceived as a result. It’s entirely reasonable to say that if actions you chose resulted in the creation of another life, you have a responsibility to sustain that life for at least 9 months. Everyone knows sex makes babies.
By the definition you're using for "life", it should be illegal to kill mold.
Life is not a new thing that's created when a sperm and an egg meet. We are all continuations of existing life which at some point acquires individual egos.
The criteria we use for what is "murder" (not OK) and what is "killing" (OK) do not boil down to "what is sentient" or "what can feel", or even "what has a heartbeat". When we distinguish "murder" and "killing", it boils down to "what has an ego".
An embryo does not have an ego. You're saying the embryo's nonexistent ego must be protected because, if left to grow, it will eventually develop one. If that's the case, then potentially fertile parents must be punished if they don't have as many children as they possibly can, because they could all develop egos.
You had 19 children, but could have possibly had 20? Murder! To the gallows with you!
A human baby in the womb has human DNA and is a human. It’s not mold. It’s not a theoretical potential human. It is an existent human with its own unique human DNA.
Otherwise you have to define when a human becomes a human, and that’s a very dangerous slippery slope that can lead to many atrocities of human rights based who we feel deserves to be classified as a fully realized human person. A newborn? A 5-year-old? A person with developmental disabilities? A person with mental illness? A person with dementia? Where is the line drawn?
No one forced her to have sex. 99% of abortions are from voluntary sex. People know when they have sex there is a possibility another human being will be conceived as a result. It’s entirely reasonable to say that if actions you chose resulted in the creation of another life, you have a responsibility to sustain that life for at least 9 months. Everyone knows sex makes babies.
By the definition you're using for "life", it should be illegal to kill mold.
Life is not a new thing that's created when a sperm and an egg meet. We are all continuations of existing life which at some point acquires individual egos.
The criteria we use for what is "murder" (not OK) and what is "killing" (OK) do not boil down to "what is sentient" or "what can feel", or even "what has a heartbeat". When we distinguish "murder" and "killing", it boils down to "what has an ego".
An embryo does not have an ego. You're saying the embryo's nonexistent ego must be protected because, if left to grow, it will eventually develop one. If that's the case, then potentially fertile parents must be punished if they don't have as many children as they possibly can, because they could all develop egos.
You had 19 children, but could have possibly had 20? Murder! To the gallows with you!
A human baby in the womb has human DNA and is a human. It’s not mold. It’s not a theoretical potential human. It is an existent human with its own unique human DNA.
Otherwise you have to define when a human becomes a human, and that’s a very dangerous slippery slope that can lead to many atrocities of human rights based who we feel deserves to be classified as a fully realized human person. A newborn? A 5-year-old? A person with developmental disabilities? A person with mental illness? A person with dementia? Where is the line drawn?