Quote:
Originally Posted by prometeus  I think that all who are serious about the issue of abortion, on either side of it, readily acknowledge that from the time of fertilization, what develops inside a pregnant woman is in fact alive and it is human. However, because humanity's evolution both physically and intellectually, we have a well developed language that accurately can describe most things and circumstances we come across, including human reproduction. It is intellectually dishonest call a developing fetus a child for the purposes of a debate. Just as we do not call our children, man or woman. Nor do we call teens senior citizens even if they do have several years seniority over an infant. Of course if one can only bring to a discussion hype and emotion totally devoid or reasoning or substance, then by all means it is understandable. That does raise the question tho, why come to a gun fight with a knife?
Along the lines of emotion and other hollow tactics is also the needed to mention "innocence" in a fetus. Well what else could it be? And if it can not be guilty why bother, other than in an attempt to bolster an otherwise empty argument? Or can guilt be assigned to a fetus who for instance brings health complications for the pregnant woman? If so what should the penalty be? |
It's also the intellectual development of humans which allows us to understand things such as "human" and "life" and "death". We are able to project our feelings onto others, to feel empathy, and to understand what it is to feel, to be alive, and to exist with others of our species. Rights do in fact exist, they are fundamental to what it is to be human. Because we know life and because we know death and our own fears of it, because of our empathy, we are able to understand such abstract thoughts as right to life. Do I have the right to rob the life of another? If such a right to life does not exist then why should it be considered wrong? Why is it considered immoral? Is it self preservation? If so, why would we claim others have it? Mere self preservation would be for ourselves, and we wouldn't claim any right to life as anyone else who isn't us can be destroyed without affecting the outcome of our own life. Is it self-righteousness? Holier than thou attitudes rarely produce results which extend equally across the breadth of mankind the same treatments. If you look at the crazier of the Christians you can see just that. That church in Kansas operates on self-righteousness, yet they do not extend the right to life to certain segments of the populas.
No, it is neither self-preservation nor self-righteousness which births our understanding of our rights; it is empathy. The ability to understand the feelings of others, to know that as we feel pain they feel pain, just as we experience life so do others in similar fashion. Our intellect allows us to grasp this concept and understand the implications of such. Right to life, liberty, and property are fundamentals to humans because we know the basics. To live, to live free, to live by our own work on our own land without fear of government or aristocratic takeover with no reason. To claim self-preservation or righteousness is just a way to define a problem to easily dismiss it. In such a case you don't have to even consider the words of others. Central to the claim is that the right to life does not exist, so now you must invent a reason as to why. Claiming it is self-preservation or righteousness makes it easier to simply dismiss the claim. But obviously it can not come from these sources. There is noting inherent to either of those things which would make one extend past themselves and project upon the populas. Rights exist, they are inherent to all humans, because our species evolved great intellect and the ability to grasp the abstract. Empathy is the source of our rights, not mere self-preservation nor righteousness.
If it is intellectually dishonest to call a fetus an unborn child, than it is equally intellectually dishonest to liken that life to a parasite.