RE: The reason religion is so powerful
June 9, 2021 at 7:14 pm
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2021 at 7:48 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(June 9, 2021 at 6:48 pm)brewer Wrote: The original position was unborn rights from conception, makes no sense when you consider molar pregnancies and other genetic abnormalities without more precise definitions.
IF you believe humans have/deserve rights then you're logically committed to that premise. And if you have an issue with that premise just amend it so that not all humans have rights. For example, since you take issues extending rights to any organism with developmental problems, just change the first premise to reflect that: Only humans without developmental problems have/deserve rights, etc.
I don't understand why a twin dying in the womb, or fertilization going astray, throws a wrench into your whole conception of humankind. The acardiac twin is dead—it's got bigger things to worry about than you giving rights to it.
