The other problem with “birth” being the point when a human gains the right to life is when the baby is partially out in the air, and partially still in the birth canal (i.e. parital birth abortions). So there isn’t just “born” and “not yet born.” There’s a short phase of life in between those two things.
I think that legal rights for a human living being should begin at the very beginning of his or her life, at conception, with the foundational right being the right to life. Without the right to life for the unborn, the other promised legal rights to life could be rather hard to attain.
Right. I always wondered at this argument because for the vast majority of pregnancies there is no way of knowing that the woman is pregnant until implantation. The only way this argument would have any merit is to argue for the drugs which would prevent a fertilized eggs from implanting.
Sometimes the egg is defined as not human. So drugs which would prevent implantation wouldn’t be considered abortifacient. However, if the statistic is a true representation for natural pregnancies and life really does begin at conception, that is a whole lot of babies that die before birth.
So, what is it? An elephant?
I don’t know what they claim it is. Some type of prehuman?
The problem is, Legal rights is not based upon essentialism or Catholic morality.
I think this discussion has some conflation of “human” and “personhood.” They are not quite the same thing.
No religious beliefs are needed to understand that human life begins at conception.
Does a chimera have two souls? Do monozygotic twins share a soul?
Abortion is murder. It should already be covered under laws against murder.
Religious beliefs are needed in order to know that a fetus has a personal soul that has intrinsic objective moral value given by God. Such cannot be known in a legal secular context.
Since you are just barking your assertions and beliefs at me without really addressing what I have said, I will not be responding to any more of your posts. It seems that you are intent upon learning the hard way.
But it is the State’s responsibility to defend the lives of its citizens. If unborn fetuses are truly human, then the State needs to protect their rights to life. As far as I am aware there is no legal definition of a human; there are a few precedents like Roe vs. Wade which could be used to show what legally doesn’t count for humanity. However, until such a time that a human being is rigidly defined, there is possibility for legal action by those who view fetuses as human beings.
Please read my post again. When you can respond in a manner that suggests that you fully understood what I have written, I will respond in kind.
They have a right to defend what is understood to be “persons”, not fetuses.
In terms of the law, this does not matter. The law can be altered to declare that human life begins at conception. It has already happened in some cases where it is possible to be charged with murder for killing a pregnant woman. Common sense says that a fetus could be nothing other than human life. An unborn baby and a newborn both have human DNA, though one is less developed, smaller, more dependent, and in a different environment than children outside the womb. These reasons are not sufficient to declare one not a person, as a newborn shares these characteristics when compared with a toddler, who shares them when compared with a teen, etc. There is really no possible way to justify anything other than life beginning at conception and religion doesn’t need to be invoked to do so.
Why is a fetus not a person?
