fkusumot said:
Bodhesatva said:
Here's a simple scenario to highlight my above point: if science or some religion were to prove, without any doubt, that two day old embryo's were capable of understanding and feeling pain the way a month old new born is -- or, if you'd prefer, were able to "prove" the existance of souls to us beyond a shadow of a doubt, and then prove that these embryos had souls -- would any of us still be pro-choice? I'd bet the answer is no, because that is unambiguously, unequivocably murder. However, no religion has really "proved" to me (or many others) that souls exist, and science certainly doesn't support the notion that early embryonic fetuses are capable of cognition or any real semblance of pain. Therefore, I am pro-choice, because the evidence I see does not support the notion that early embryos are "human" in the manner in which I define that term. |
Not exactly. I do appreciate the distinction you are making but I think it turns on what a "person/human" is. I mean, I'm a carnivore and I believe that animals (amongst other things) have a soul. |
This whole thing is all a semantic argument, so you can replace that word with whatever you want. If you'd prefer something like "inaliable spiritual essence instilled by god, making us uniquely human," that's fine. Just jam that phrase in wherever I say "souls."
