Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike33
I understand your point. But this 'potential' as you call it is unique and is the beginning of human life. It is not a child or developed human being, but with time (all things being equal), it will develop the qualities you mentioned. It is not up to us to decide the worth of that potential - we were all potentials at one point in time. In fact every human in existence had to be a potential.
If there is a bird on the endangered species list and I find one and I destroy the eggs in its nest, I've committed a crime of killing an endangered species - not a potential endangered species. Human life is even more precious and should be protected throughout the entire course of its development.
Certainly by current law you're correct; the potential is not seen as human therefore abortion is legal.
A miscarriage is an unfortunate circumstance outside of the control of the people involved and is not analogous to abortion.
The cycle of life is a fact. It is the only natural means that humans come into existence.
|
No, you don't understand my point. Let me explain what you missed.
You are defending the rights of "potential". Now, sperm cells and egg cells have "potential". Using condoms, you destroy that "potential". After all, without condoms, all other things being equal, a woman might get pregnant from sex. And yes, this potential is unique and the beginning of life as well, and yes, all of us were this kind of potential once as well.
See how your arguments make using condoms "wrong" as well? Clearly, there must be something wrong with those arguments.
Luckily, it is quite easy to point out exactly what is wrong with your arguments: you are basing moral rights on fuzzy concepts like "uniqueness", "the cycle of life" and "the beginning of life".
The cycle of life is NOT a moral concept. Yes, there is something that could be described as "the cycle of life", but it is simple biology. Nothing moral or spiritual about it.
Now, about miscarriages, my point there is that they are not as tragic as an actual person dying, since an actual person has a higher moral value than an embryo. The analogy here is that if abortion is "killing a child", then a miscarriage is "a child dying" - and no, that analogy does not work, because an embryo isn't a child yet.
As for endangered species dying... we're talking about risking an entire species there. We don't protect those eggs because of the intrinsic value of those eggs (if they were chicken eggs, they'd be an omelette), but because destroying those eggs could contribute to the entire species disappearing forever. Little risk of that happening with humans, now is there?