I agree that we are not only DNA, in fact, I think DNA is the least important element of our humanity. In what ways do you think we are more than just our DNA?
Zone1 Religious or not, Abortion is wrong because life starts at conception
- Thread starter Cougarbear
- Start date
Technically, yes. But it has never been prosecuted as murder, dummy.
Would it make you feel better if abortion were prosecuted like murder? Because I think given the complexity of the crime it should only be a Class "C" misdemeanor with no jail time.
A better question is what would it take for you to stop dehumanizing human life in the womb.
Agreed, and we kill many things for many reasons, so using science to support your value judgements is disingenuous.
No, I think my question was just fine and deserving of an answer.
How am I using science to justify anything other than defining when a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence?
Trickster
Gold Member
Didn't I tell you to check your premises long ago?
I feel the exact same way, but we both know you won't answer my question.
I make no distinction of the humanity of a human life in the womb as I would for any other stage of the human life cycle. You do. So to answer your question. Every stage along the human life cycle is human and has the appropriate characteristics for each specific stage in the human life cycle. So the answer is it depends upon which stage of the human life cycle one is in.
How am I using science to justify anything other than defining when a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence?
I'm not. I am only using science to define when human life begins.
Actually, I agree with you but I believe there are valid reasons for ending that life but the reasons depend upon which stage of the human life cycle one is in.
- If that human is trying to kill me, I'm justified in killing them first.
- If that human is terminally ill and wants to die I'm justified in killing them.
- If that human is no more than a set of DNA and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term, I'm justified in killing them.
Or you could say killing is wrong but you choose to do or support doing wrong. You won't, but you could.
You implied that that genetically distinct human being is equally valuable at every stage because of the 'science'.
No. I didn't. I said at conception human life is fully human and remains fully human throughout the human life cycle.
You superimposed value, not me.
Was I wrong or do you assess different values to the different stages of the human life cycle?
Could you say that it is ALWAYS wrong to kill a human being or are there circumstances where it is the best option available?
Trickster
Gold Member
Abortion is not prinarily a mater of science, but actually one of individual rights. The questions to be answered are when do roghts begin and why? The disagreement is not over if a ZEF has human DNA or if it is alive.
You are using science to coat your shitty faith based reasons in a more (shallowly) logical dress. It is not working.
It is interesting how your base goes omegalol at science when the topic is creationism or vaccines, to all of a sudden take advantage of it in the abortion debate.
Do you know what my position is on the punishment for abortion? A Class "C" misdemeanor with no jail time.
Trickster
Gold Member
We already do that.
Children and adults have different degrees of rights. Animals, although life, do not have individual rights.
Edit: I misread. Sorry.
What I would say is that in the best of circumstances it would be the lessor of two evils.
Trickster
Gold Member
Even though it is murder?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
U.K Migrant crossings hit 10,000 so far in 2025, a 40% increase from last year.- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 1
-
-
No More Tariffs? Rand Paul allegedly has the votes to stop them.- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 3
Latest Discussions
-
So, it's nine days until the benchmark "1st hundred days" for trump
- Latest: Nuthin' Fancy
-
