Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kryptoni
willravel - I actually agree with your stand. I was pointing out the absurdity of abortion. That it is acceptable to murder your children because they are not able to live outside a womans uterus yet.
Therefore, if it is acceptable to murder unborn children, why not born? What's the difference. They are still reliant on me as a parent for life (i.e. food, shelter, etc). They are still just a lump of screaming flesh for the first year at least anyway. Then they never make rational decisions until well after 18. Sounds like me as a parent should be able to have the 'freedom' to decide if this 'biological by-product' is not living up to the standards I set and thus wish to 'abort' them.
-snip-
|
In my opinion the difference between a baby and developing fetus is the ability to function in even a mimimal way as what I define as human. I am of the opinion that the human brain is the one defining aspect of our biology that truly makes us what we are. Thus until the minimum connectivity and development of the internal structure of this organ is in place, it is indeed a grouping of cellular material as of yet incapable of the thought needed to be a human entity. The eventual creation of this ability does not come into play until it is not longer....eventual.
Once these connections are made, this "screaming flesh" as you so eloquently put it, has the hardware in place to be a sentient being, and in my opinion changes status dramatically. Fortunately, it is well understood that the vast majority of abortions take place long before there is even the slightest chance thought could take place. So...I personally have no major issues with the proceedure.