Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[genkaus]

All your doing is harping on autonomy.

An important aspect of being human

Accept science, no mater what the stage of developement is, it's the same DNA and organism that was formed at fetilization.

Good thing we consider humans to be more than just DNA - otherwise you'd be held guilty of mass-murder every time you jacked off.

If you want to harp on autonomy, then you must recognise that even a new-born still relies on others for it's survival.

And the others have refusing to support it. At the very least, the same choice should be afforded to the woman during pregnancy.

A seed has enough energy from it's parent that it can live for several days with nothing once it's germinated.
Whether or not an embryo, fetus, or a "bunch of fucking cells" can survive on it's own is irrelevant to fact that it is an independant living organism.

If it was an independent living organism then it wouldn't be dependent upon the mother. Thus, by definition, it is not independent.

A newborn cannot survive on it's own once outside the womb, nor can a coma patient on life support.

But the responsibility of supporting them is not forced onto anyone.

All you're doing is making an excuse for taking human life when the only difference in that lifeform is it's age and abilities.

No. As has been indicated over and over again, the difference is not being a parasite.

Says you...

Say the facts.

---

Well a human life is distinguished from lower life forms such as a cow, in that the latter, humans don't believe it's huge crime (over all don't) to kill and eat it. The reason has to do with it's intelligence.

I'd say it was the capacity for intelligence that is considered - not intelligence itself. If intelligence was the criteria, Catfish would be on the menu.

Now a baby doesn't have much intelligence, as far as intelligence goes, it's not too advanced.

But it does have all the hardware required for it - thereby having the capacity for intelligence.

But still we don't kill a baby and consider it insignificant like that of killing an animal (be it wrong or right), because we give value to what it can become and the journey it can go through.

Fair enough.

Now if this is true, the same logic should apply to why we should give respect to an embryo, because it's on it's way to life...it's heading there.

That's where you'd be wrong. The baby does not exist as a parasite upon the mother. It can exist outside her and go on to become a human being and the mother is not obligated to provide for it if she chooses not to. She is free to give it up anytime. The embryo, on the other hand, does exist as a parasite - from sucking nutrients from the host to causing her a host of health problems. It'd be unconscionable to force her to continue hosting it simply for the sake of what it might become. The math is simple - you can 'value' the embryo all you like as long as it does not infringe upon the woman's autonomy.

Moreover, the genetics are determining a specific person...it's on it's way to a specific person.

All the more justification for not allowing a 'person' to infringe upon the rights of another.

The instinct of humans is that human life is a journey well worth preserving. Even humans who believe in after life don't believe it's ok to stop a human from the journey of life.

Given that we don't consider every 'instinct' worth following, why should we consider this one?

Now an embryo is very much on it's way to life.

And for the part of the way it exists as a parasite, the decision of what to do with it should be up to the host.

A baby is not like us with the same intelligence, but it's on it's way. This is why we don't consider killing it, like killing an animal even if the animal is just as intelligent as that baby.

As I said, that is not why.

Anyways, all this cold thinking and justifying is not the real reason.

There is something more to it - something that I can't explain - but every part of my soul tells me it's wrong.

We don't listen to voices in our heads.