… a fetus has none of the qualities that are generally attributed to a human. the potential to become something does not qualify it as being that thing. that’s why vegetarians can eat eggs but not chickens. that’s why furniture is made out of trees, not seeds.
From the moment of conception, the human being is created in the image and likeness of God; eggs, chickens, furniture, and seeds are not. This is where we get the religious perspective that all persons are created equal. If the human being is not created in the image and likeness of God, there would be no need to treat people equally before the law, because they would be no different from eggs, chickens, furniture, and seeds.
History is replete with claims that a certain class of people is not really human. American slave owners justified slavery by claiming that blacks were not really human beings. The Nazis said the same thing about the Jews. Have you never heard of the Golden Rule? Suppose we got enough people to support a law that declared Taoists were not really human? Besides, how can you support a “choice” that, if you mother had made it, you wouldn’t be here to advocate for it? If such advocacy isn’t a fallacy, it should be.
So you, my friend, have fallen for what we Christians call the Big Lie. A pro-abortion editorial appearing in the September 1970 issue of
California Medicine contains a revealing statement on lying in the service of killing:
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of
the scientific fact,
which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable
semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often
put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this
schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.” [Emphasis added] This is not a religious perspective; it was written by those who support abortion on demand.
it is a religious sentiment that attempts to define an embryo as a human being. so, how can another person’s religious perspective be used to make the laws?
Whether you accept it or not, all laws are based on someone’s religious perspectives. Take environmentalists for example. They worship mother earth and have been successful [and they make no qualms about it] in forcing the rest of us obey their “religious perspectives.” Remember that the imposition of values (lawmaking) is part of creating a government and society. Thus, it’s not a matter of
if we’re going to impose values but simply
what values will be imposed.
Can’t you see that?
