Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I remember when Canadian law said women weren't persons. And even when U.S. law said slaves weren't legal persons entitled to the same protections under the law. Good times. Good times.
...Or were they?
Anyway, I fail to see what arguing personhood accomplishes, given that you can't accurately define it (As evidenced by the fact that your definition of personhood isn't the definition the law follows). You can only put forth arguments on what you think constitutes a person, which is completely subjective and open to opinion. Laws shouldn't be based on subjective opinions, but rather some manner of objective facts.
And, just for the record, a zygote is considered to be a brand new individual, and not just a "collection of cells".
(And I really wanted to invoke Godwin's Law, too.)
|
From the first post: "This is to discuss the ethics (or lack thereof) of abortion."
I attempted to explain how I believe the current laws to be ethical by explaining the way in which I value of existence.
And if you're going to evoke Godwin's Law (which you have, by mentioning that you wanted to mention Godwin's Law. Oh the wonders of passive aggressive conversation!) I'm entirely against one person ending another's story after it's started.
You and I just disagree on when the story begins.
Oh, and I'm not saying that a zygote isn't another individual, I'm just saying that an individual that has no "story" is to be valued as a person.