Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
I know that is your theory, that a just-conceived embryo really isn't sufficiently like a person to warrant protection. However, what I have yet to hear explained is how you arrived at that theory. Why is an embryo not sufficiently like a person to warrant protection. What is it that makes a being sufficiently like a person to warrant protection?.
|
You know, maybe I've been scrolling too much, but I've yet to hear an articulation of why a fetus
is deserving of protection. I look at a baby and say it's human. I look at a dog, and I say it's a dog. I look at a fetus, and I say, no, not "human" but "fetus" or "blob" or "sac" or "cell mass" or something. Is it simply that it's an entity of some sort?
Because if your point is "we must protect it like a human" then it seems to me that you bear the burden of extending those protections to something that clearly is not yet human, particularly in those early days--where your slope is most slippery.
And if your point is "the constitution doesn't prohibit us from protecting it" then why is any personally invasive requirement, from the drugs you take, to the food you eat, to the number of craps you make, off limits? And if the answer is, it's not, then I think I'm going to Rome to take an on-time train to Berlin. Maybe I'll get off in Moscow, or just hop the orient express to Pyongyang.
