At 4/14/2012 7:30:29 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/26/2012 10:55:53 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Is there any widely-accepted (among the anti abortion rights community) argument for the proposition that personhood begins at conception, whose principles cannot be adapted to argue that personhood begins prior to conception, when the constituent gametes of the zygote begin to exist?
To put it another way: if a spermatozoon and an ovum will combine with one another and become a zygote unless prevented from doing so, then why is it moral to make a decision that results in their not combining, but immoral to abort the zygote?
"Personhood" That isn't even a real scientific term. It was made up and pulled out of thin air by some political hack to redirect the debate about when life begins. Life begins at conception, ask any scientist. Politicians by the way are not scientists, incase you didn't know.
The Pro-life arguement is based from pure religious dogmatism, and the Pro-choice assertion is pure selfishnes, the arguement at hand is whether or not we should change the rights, so an appeal to other rights is just as dogmatic and irrational. The matter is the moral principle, and that hings on sentience. They are both forms of fundementalism. One bold assertion is as good as the next.
Life is continious, that is life comes from life, there is no point within life that it is not life. Sperm is ovaries are alive, or they wouldn't work. But so are plants animals and insect. The issue is what we consider as part of the moral community and that is sentient beings, therefore the question is of sentience. Thus it is not immoral until sentience is a factor, then a fetus is a part of the moral communitiy. And should then became protected under moral law.
"All the same, it could be that I am mistaken, and what I take for Gold and Diamonds is perhaps nothing but a bit of copper and glass."
"I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also" Rene Descartes