Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
IMO its a fallacy to impose one moral standard as the only moral position that can or should be considered in the discussion.
|
In the discussion? Well, that's different. There's no sense in blocking an entire group of viewpoints from entering a discussion. I don't share this fallacy.
I don't understand why you associate it with the pro-life viewpoint, though. There's plenty of "la-la-la, I can't hear you" on both sides.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
will...the medical consensus does not agree with you.
|
But not so much for scientific/medical reasons as for arbitrary definitional reasons. It's not science that's in opposition to will here. How does one use the scientific process to determine that a thing must have attributes X, Y, and Z in order to be considered a living organism?
Or, to cut right to the chase, why do these attributes need to exist before the organism becomes worthy of legal protection?
When it comes right down to it, science can only clarify facts. We get the values elsewhere.