betterthanabortion:
merr-man-deactivated20140503:
See, your problem is you think life begins at conception. Its not that simple. Life began a few million years ago on this planet anyway and its been a continuous cycle since then. Its a bit of a gray area but we have sectioned the process off into stages. What were we before a fetus? A few multiplying cells caused by the union of sperm and egg. Before that, we existed only as code in our parents DNA and if you go back far enough, we lived inside stars.
You draw the line at conception but calling a 4 or 16 or 64 celled merger of a sperm and egg a functioning human would be a stretch even for your type. You can call it a human after birth but even then the title is dubious as the baby is completely dependent on others to stay alive and has no concept of self or cognitive thoughts other than to shit its pants regularly. Taking all that into consideration, we’ve drawn the line for abortion at the average age at which the fetus could live unaided outside the womb and I think that’s a pretty reasonable call.
Human life does begin at conception! This is not a matter of taste or opinion, but recognized as fact by the entire scientific community. Even those who are pro-choice understand that at the moment of conception, a new human life has begun.
YOU never existed as a sperm or an egg. YOU were never just coding in your parents’ DNA. YOU began to exist at the moment your parents’ gametes fused to form YOUR unique, genetic structure. That is when your life as a member of the human race began.
The way human development works is this: at some point, you were a 2-celled human (like the one above), then a 4-celled human, then a 16-celled human, then a 64-celled human, and so on. By the time you were born, you had between 1-5,000,000,000,000 cells, and now after nearly 30 years of existence, you have between 70-100,000,000,000 cells. How many cells you have does nothing to change your humanity. If it did, you would be considered worth less than someone else after losing an appendage or organ.
Whether or not you’re dependent on others, have complex cognitive abilities, or are able to control your bowels… these things are not what make you human, either. To suggest they are is not only unscientific, but ableist and offensive to born persons with those disabilities. What you need to accept is that you are no better than anyone else, but equal to all other humans, no matter the extent of their capabilities.
You think it’s reasonable to kill innocent humans simply because they are too weak to survive on their own, so why draw the line at the womb? A newborn is still dependent on someone else’s bodily functions to survive, and will be until they’re 3-5 years old. A disabled or elderly person may be unable to get around on their own or use the bathroom like everyone else. Why not legalize people killing their toddlers, grandparents, and disabled relatives “on demand and without apology?”
Speaking from a logical and consistent standpoint, it’s either morally acceptable to kill an innocent human at any point in their development, or it never is. So which is it?
\'A non viable fetus is not a human.\' If this is true, then what type of fetus IS it?
