Stupid things religious people say

[Angrboda]

In that taking a life without justification is immoral killing, it applies to things that are already born. In that taking a life of something that is not yet born, it is unlike the clear case of unjustified killing of those already born.

Note for any gun-ho mods; this is *not* my position but rather the mirror of what is stated above - I do not, nor believe any one here, holds these positions.

"In that taking a life without justification is immoral killing, it applies to those that we deem human. In that taking the life of the black man I own, it is unlike the clear case of unjustified killing of those who are fully human and not of the lesser genotypes."

Again - I *do not* believe that to be the tone or stab of your argument; however from the perspective that all human life is inherently granted the right to human rights that is how incredulous that argument sounds. My position is fundamentally that *all* humans - regardless of age, gender, color, or any other physical trait - are guaranteed the same equal rights, so to begin to make exceptions based on the location of the life is just a non-starter.

Well, that's the $64,000 question, if you include things that aren't fully human in the usual sense the word is used, do they still possess that right?

You only get to that position, usually, by ignoring actual differences that exist in a pretense that a zygote is no different from a 36 year old person.

Beyond that, I defy you to show me how your statement is anything but ipse dixit? As a starter, note that we do not object to killing animals that have more in common with the 36 year old than does the zygote. Why is that moral if some characteristic or set of characteristics is the bar for acquiring the right you want to liberally apply? To peek ahead, the usual answer is that some set of characteristics count as human, and that is what makes one eligible, at which point it becomes basically an example of the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy in that you want to give certain things a right, and to justify doing so, you explicitly draw a bullseye around those things that you want to have that right. At that point, it's clear that you're not making a moral argument, but a political one.