Mr Khan said:
The rationale for defining human life as "sacred and inviolable" should be Decartesian: Sentient thought or the capacity to do so is what separates us from the animals, humans incapable of doing so (note, the bar for sentience is decently low, so the mentally handicapped and toddlers still qualify) do not qualify for the same degree of consideration (note that this does not mean a total lack of consideration. All life deserves some respect, but all non-sentient life should ultimately be disposable if doing so is for the best) |
Would you be okay with your mother having aborted you? Do you love her enough to give her that kind of ultimate freedom? Would you be okay with not existing if that's what someone decided is for the best? If everything you've ever been is part of the same life, why is at any point your life less valuable?
And does thinking the bolded part really separate us from animals?
(BTW I've never heard these arguments before, they just came to me)








