Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
When I said life = life I thought you would know that "human" was implied; human life = human life. Maybe your non humous flails are Freudian slips and you believe an unborn child's life is equal to dead cells, chairs and ants. On the otherhand, I believe an unborn child is human being.
toretorden,
I don't believe in Utilitarianism in justifing abortion.
What I said was a mother has life, you understand the importance of this statement, right? It would wrong to take the life of the mother, right? The unborn baby also has life, so therefore it would be wrong to take the life of the unborn baby. And I never said one was more important then the other, when I was talking about mother and unborn child.
child is a human being
an unborn baby is a human being
taking the life of an innocent child is wrong
human being = human being
If one believes taking a life of an innocent child is wrong, then one must come to the conclusion that taking the life of the unborn human being is wrong.
|
But then if you say an embryo/ early stage fetus is a human being, you'd also have to say that sperm are human beings, eggs are human beings, and that other human cells are human beings etc... and so the life of the mother does not equal the life of a human cell. I think that's what people coming from a scientific/ medical perspective are trying to say.
Sperm are also cells with life that have the potential to become a child... so do you think it's wrong to dispose of sperm wrongfully? You can't argue that life = life when looking at it from a medical perspective.