(July 22, 2013 at 7:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Lets try and move on then pineapple. Man I thought we'd done that posts ago!
It's a unique human, it's blueprint sealed at conception. It is no different in it's life than any other human life... you and me. If it's ethically wrong to take post birth human life, what makes it ethically neutral pre birth?
What makes us value human life seems to be your question, which I think surpasses the scope of this discussion. That much we already accept. It might be egotistical. Biologically rooted as part of our special drive to procreate. Whatever the reason, humans concur that human life is important. We have laws to reflect that. Do you want to expand the discussion to include sentient humans? Why not? What are your reasons to suppose taking any human life isn't an ethical question?
(July 22, 2013 at 7:05 pm)orogenicman Wrote: The fact remains that the majority of those who call themselves pro-life, aren't. They are anti-womens' rights.
Go talk to someone making that point then OM.
I am.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
