Perseverance of the Saints
Cute, but if you didn’t want to debate morality with me then why did you bring up moral relativism in response to my thread? You’re like the guy who jumps in the bear pen at the zoo, slaps the bear across the nose and then claims he didn’t come there to wrestle a bear when he starts tossing him around. People can see right through you.
She brings up a provocative question.
It quite an arbitrary point to define a certain stage of a pregnancy as the point that the fetus actually becomes a human therefore unacceptable to abort.
We simply do not know.
Though I believe that viability(point at which a fetus "could" survive) is a reasonable choice.
Many pro-choice folks likely rationalize the decision by dehumanizing the fetus in their mind.
Also I find it quite ironic that the party who, as a platform, is pro life is also generally for the elimination/significant reduction of Medicaid(bare bones government insurance that provides prenatal care to poor mothers and then covers their children).
Well there’s no way around defining it has a human from the point of conception on because that’s the point at which complete and distinct human DNA is present. I believe the question you are referring to is when person-hood begins; which you are right, there is no way to define person-hood along the developmental spectrum without being completely arbitrary. The only way to be consistent in this matter is to define all humans as being people which would make the baby a person from the moment of conception on.
Though I believe that viability(point at which a fetus "could" survive) is a reasonable choice.Many pro-choice folks likely rationalize the decision by dehumanizing the fetus in their mind.
You pointed out above, and correctly so I might add, that defining “humanship” at any point along the spectrum is completely arbitrary, but now you say that your choice is somehow “reasonable”? That implies that your definition is in fact not arbitrary but you are using some sort of standard by which you measure reasonability of definitions by. What is that standard?
I think this is a bit of a non-sequitur, a person can consistently be pro-life and also believe it is not the proper role of the federal Government to financially support low income citizens and their families.
How do you measure the importance of a life? If we deemed your life unimportant are we justified in killing you?