|
We agree what the implications of aborting are: the taking a human life.
"My argument is that there are worse things than "murdering" a fetus when we are not sure about that fetus' status; namely, taking away the rights and freedoms of someone that is, beyond any doubt, a fully realized person."
What rights/freedoms are being taken away? ZERO. Unless you consider the taking of a human life a right. Especially when you consider that everyone who steps up to their responsibilities, carries the baby to term - in the long wrong never has any regrets. Have you ever heard anyone say "I just should have aborted my child." No, i don't think you have. And we can probably agree that there are a boatload of children out there who were unplanned, weren't conceived in the most ideal of circumstances, etc, etc.
I wasn't brushing off your argument as being from some "pro-choice advocate." Your definition of life came from some pro-choice advocate and as such is defined in a way that will not contradict their view on abortion - a "convenient" definition if you will.
And you certainly can't argue that a person in a coma wouldmeet any of the criteria that you mentioned. Why not just kill them - is it because they have "the potential" to become a person? hmmm, where have i heard that before. Besides - out of the 5 criteria for life the only one i can pinpoint and can say for sure a 3 month fetus doesn't have and that's the capacity for reasoning.
One more thing - we're arguing abortion here. You're getting all testy from what I can tell because at one point i said "you conveniently blahblahblah", and another i said "your definitioin of life (in all its wisdom)." Conveniently doesn't imply dishonest, and the "in your wisdom" was more irony than sarcasm. It was just making the point that that definition of life came from someone who had an agenda to suit that definition for their own words - and certainly not an M.D. I don't think i'm being overly sarcastic or condescending.
|