Quote:
|
if the pro-life movement is so concerned for the life of the baby why arn't they looking for a way to easily allow a fetus to develop without a mother? where's my artificial womb?
|
Are you serious? Shit, where's my flying car?
Quote:
|
i think it's incredibly egotistical and condescending to say that an outsider has any domain over another person's body.
|
Me too. However, I would like to hear a rational counter to this secular (that means non-religious, for the non-dictionary inclined) argument:
Assume for the moment that the thing being aborted is not a "person" in any moral sense, and that we're not even going to entertain the conceit of a soul. What is being aborted, however, is undeniably human, albeit at an early stage of development, and is most certainly not part of the mother- it's a new entity, right down to the DNA. If not properly encapsulated, the mother's own immune system would attack it (and sometimes does, which is not great for either of them). Although Pro-Choice, I've always found the "It's My Body" argument to be fatuous. It's not the mother's body being aborted, it's some separate thing's partially developed body. Call a spade a spade.
I mean, how is denying that the aborted thing is alive and not a part of the mother not like arguing that the flu I had last week was a part of me? The germs came into me from an external source (I'm guessing from the fountain at work), gestated, grew, cells multiplied, and my health was affected.
I don't want anyone to say that abortion is universally wrong, I don't believe that either. Unfortunate, yes, but not necessarily evil. I just want to know how it's not killing. If you render something that was living unto a dead state by deliberate means, I think that's called killing. Dictionary.com says that killing is "To cause death or extinction; be fatal," and I don't think being aborted put a new spring in the step of the thing that was aborted.