I apologize for the delay. m_d, you have been a pleasure to interact with. :e4e:
Feel free to respond but it seems this thread has about run its course.
WoO: All biological humans should have a fundamental right to life.
MD:Why?
WoO: Humans already have this right in general.
Stop right there. Why do you think "humans", in general, should have this right?
It's something we usually take for granted, but is important in this context.
That is a complete argument (if we help it a little).
You like cookies BECAUSE they taste good to you.
Now all I need is a similar BECAUSE for the question above.
You're basically asking me why I think killing humans is wrong or why doing so should be illegal. I feel it to be self-evident. Specifically, it is a violation of consent, it causes irreversible damage (death) to the victim, it violates the golden rule (treat others how you would want to be treated), et al.
It is a very hard question to articulate but hopefully the above will suffice.
No wider standard exists. That's the whole point.
Of course they exist. All humans from the ovum stage. All greater primates. All mammals. All biological life. etc. etc.
You reject those standards for various reasons - you don't automatically accept them just because they are wider than your standard.
When conception occurs, what begins is a human organism, identifiable a such by 46 chromosomes/human DNA.
This is not the case for any of the other examples given.
However, I don't wish the unnecessary killing of any primate. I am largely talking about protecting human life, not primate life or mammalian life, etc. So, no wider standard exists in regard to
human life, if such clarification was really needed.
Therefore, your standard as it relates to humans is inconsistent or at the very least exclusive. A human zygote is a human, yet you feel a separate standard should exist; a different standard than that used to measure every other human in existence.
There you go making the linguistic argument again.
Your whole point rests on what we CALL things. You are caught in an empty argument.
I tried to get around that by using pictures instead of terms a few pages ago. My standard does not include zygotes. If I were pedantic and was only using biological terms in this ethical debate, I wouldn't say "all humans have a right to life". So what??
What is the very first stage of human
development? I feel that
all humans should have legal protection from the very beginning of their development.
It's neither a linguistic argument nor an empty one.
Yes, we're having a semantic disconnect because we are unable to agree on what a zygote is. However, if you answer the question "What is the very first stage of human
development?", then we'll see if what we label it really matters.
I don't think it does (why I avoid "person" etc) but we have to call it
something.
You asked how they are finally killed - and that is done by human intervention.
Just like with abortion. This is why I reject your comparison. If we let
nature run it's course, the brain dead human dies, while the zygote lives.
Something isn't "good" or "ethical" simply because it is natural, and something isn't "bad" or "evil" simply because it is artificial.
Simply noting that an umbilical cord is natural and a feeding tube is artificial doesn't really say much.
I never argued either but hopefully you now understand my point and can see why it was a bad comparison from the start.
Fair enough, we are splitting hairs at this point.
We value their consent regarding the use of their body - and that trumps the right to life of those who want to use their body without consent.
Yet you reject the need for bodily consent for the one being killed in an abortion (until week X), whereas I don't think any "bodily consent" should ever trump a right to life.
Another relevant question - when can consent (regarding the continuous use of your body) be rescinded?
I don't feel such consent should ever be an issue (in regard to pregnancy), obviously. It should never be able to be rescinded.
I am not making an argument effecting 100% of pregnant rape victims, nor 100% of all unwilling mothers.
Rather, you are making an argument
against 100% of unborn only X weeks developed or less. I am arguing for them.
Yet, if the woman doesn't realize until the 26(?)+/- week then you'll use the same fundamental arguments about the woman not having bodily sovereignty. But of course, you're not devaluing all women when you make nearly identical arguments nor are you removing moral standing when you argue that a rape victim beyond this arbitrary line can not abort.
The case you mentioned is an extremely rare/far fetched corner case, and doesn't have a lot of inference on the general case. I value women's sovereignty over their body, and even more so rape victim's and for 99.99% of cases, it should trump other concerns.
Yet, the pro-choice camp in general uses 3% to argue for allowing the other 97%. Rape, incest and life of mother cases are the extremely rare/far-fetched corner cases but somehow these
do have a lot of inference on the general cases, especially on my side of the pond.
Zygotes are brainless, which is what I was targeting in that statement. Using our general sensibilities, it is so patently obvious that they are not persons that any pro-lifer clinging on to that argument are in a bind.
This isn't a gotcha moment.
I know, but you were being imprecise again
Further, it's a good thing that I am not arguing "general sensibilities" regarding "persons" because it's a bandwagon argument saved for a more philosophical discussion.
