Macarthur said:
The Banned said:
Macarthur said:
You know, i do find it interesting the last link I posted is getting completely ignored and that's what an actual human 'fetus' looks like at 8 or 10 weeks. The right loves to use the 6 week heartbeat argument which is complete nonsense. In my mind, it only strengthens the argument that, early in the pregnancy, this is a medical procedure 100%
What is the genetic makeup of that fetus (read: child)? I've seen my fair share of horribly gruesome veterans who don't even resemble their former selves after their burns. I'm sure you can find an example or two that leaves humans looking less than. If we want to go off of looks, there are any number of people who won't make it. In utero or after. Taken to the extreme, you end up with blond hair and blue eyes only (not invoking the "you're hitler" fallacy but still showing how this argument is same in kind)
Or we can look at the science of a truly unique sequence of human DNA and realize this is a new human life regardless of how he/she looks at the moment.
Or we can use the common sense of a woman showing her husband a pregnancy test at 5 weeks and understanding their simultaneous joy of new life and fear the new life won't make it. Or the girlfriend showing the boyfriend the positive test and his immediate horror.
That's the great thing about finding a base level of agreement. If you want to agree that how someone looks determines whether or not they're a human worthy of life, you'll find yourself in bad company. If you want to use genetics or common sense, I think you'll end up tying yourself into knots to come to a "pro-choice" conclusion
That's not the point, and you know it. Yes, that fetus is a human from the standpoint of dna and the fact that it will be a person, at some point. But a 6 week old fetus and a fully formed adult human is not the same issue.
That is completely arbitrary. It is not a human person to you because you say so. Not based on any objective reasoning.
Viability is subjective based on the science of the times. We are within a couple decades of artificial wombs. Is a 6 week baby a baby then because science can save it?
Looks are subjective as that can change. What exactly does it need to look like in order to become a human? Who gets to determine it looks human enough?
Cognitive ability is arbitrary because who's gets to determine what is cognitive enough? We've seen secular philosophers discussing personhood not starting until 3 years old (or older). What about people in a coma? No cognitive function but still a person. It's All subjective.
Dependent upon the mother for life doesn't work, as the baby would be dependent upon her for many more months. Years really.
The reason we point to separate human dna as the dividing line is because it is crystal clear. It's not the moms body. It's not the dads. It is independent. For as much as conservatives get accused of using religion only, we have an argument that many atheists can get behind (see the secular pro-life movement): Clear definitions, scientifically backed. It's a human.
After that we can debate whether or not moms should be able to end it's life, but let's not pretend it's not it's own unique organism. But most people in this country are against killing other people, which is why de-personing the "fetus" is so important.
