Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
I understand what you are trying to say and have me see your position on it. It may not have a concious in the beginning, but it is still human life with human DNA.
If I told you that I got a woman pregnant and said I was going to be the father of a mushroom plant once its born you would say, "you are mentally strange". Thats because you know that the moment I got a woman pregnant it means me and a woman have created a human life through my sperm and her egg. It may not have a concious in the beginning, but it quickly will within weeks and Inevitably will be birthed into the world as human.
All that to say....If its ok to end that human life before it develops a concious then it Must be ok to end that human life once it is more developed in the womb, or after its birthed, or heck when its a young child. Either way human life is being ended. Whether its before it develops a concious or after.
|
I'm not trying to claim that it is not human life. I'm claiming being human life does not automatically make it a person. When it becomes a person is highly debatable.
@Kasz. It's not scientific. Show me how you can deduce personhood through the scientific method.
|
defining personhood today is in debate as i see. Even if having a conscious defines a human as a person the human life that is developing in the womb will inevitably develop a conscious. It will inevitably be within the bounds of "personhood". a human life is human life whether its in its first stages in the womb or a 30 year old man. both have human DNA.
So if a fetus in the womb is a human being and will inevitably develop a conscious and be accepted into society as a "person" then what difference does it make if you end that life in the womb or as a 30 year old man?
