And then you scampered away from the argument when I replied
Weak bait, but I'll bite. I did not reply initially for three reasons: (1) the points you've raised have been repeatedly rebuked in the D&D (and in real life) previously; (2) the purpose of introducing abortion was to expose your self-defeating claims of "self-evident" moral standards, not to discuss the finery of the issue; (3) the topic of the thread doesn't tend itself toward a debate about abortion.
Nevertheless, since you are clearly eager to hear my rationale, I will provide it.
Yeah, just like when a chicken lays an egg. But you're not a militant vegan or anything.
It's precisely
because I do not find birdlife to hold an equivalent value to human life that I'm not a militant vegan. And since I know you are content to consume poultry and dairy products but not human flesh (either of an embryo or born person) I'd say that, despite your failed attempts to show hypocrisy on my part, we hold a similar standard here.
"genetically distinct human life" is a meaningless phrase and benchmark.
1. A genetically distinct life is more commonly referred to as an organism; a genetically distinct human life can therefore be (and scientifically is) classified as a human organism or human being. Arguing that this categorization (which applies beyond humanity) is "meaningless" is either delusional or, as I suspect is the case, a form of mindless gainsaying.
2. According to your own "I only accept scientifically verifiable information" standard, any and all moral benchmarks can be dismissed as "meaningless". So to pretend as if those who disagree with your preferred benchmark
vis-a-vis abortion (for which you can provide no objective accounting) are being "disingenuous"
is itself disingenuous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_t...n_of_pregnancy
"There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human becomes viable.
[15] A 2015 study found that even with active treatment, no infants born at less than 22 weeks survived, at 23 weeks survival without severe impairment is less than 2%, and at 25 weeks, up to 30% might survive without severe impairment.
[16][17] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survived,"
I'm not sure what the purpose of pasting wiki information about "viability" is. The term doesn't imply that humans which are not viable outside of the womb are valueless; you're simply extrapolating a subjective moral judgement from it - ie. that only humans which can survive independently are deserving of the right to life. This position can be easily rebuked by highlighting that foetuses which
are viable as well as birthed infants and vulnerable adults cannot survive independently either.
There's nothing "individually human" about them.
A zygote is a genetically distinct human life form (organism) at the earliest stage of development (a phase common to all humanity). All of the building blocks for adult life (unique DNA) are present. Hair colour, eye colour, gender, heritable personality traits, potential height, etc. have already been determined. Therefore, the claim that there is nothing "individually human" about zygote is both scientifically and morally false.
They have no personality or emotion, no sentience. They are aware of nothing and are nothing more than a tumor or growth.
Even were I to accept the premise that "sentience" is the only valuable element of life, your point would still be irrelevant. The expectation that the zygote/embryo/foetus will, as a consequence of its inherited genetics, rapidly develop observable "personality, emotion, sentience" etc. is more than enough to justify its right to life.
You're aborting something that is at that point essentially a parasite, with the active infanticide of an entire nation's babies.I don't think it's a stretch at all to call it disingenuous. It's a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.
1. By referring to the unborn as "parasites" (a sordid attempt to devalue the life) you're inadvertently conceding that zygotes/embryos are distinct organisms and defeating your own argument that pregnancies concern only the physiology of one organism (ie. the mother). You are also implying that you would support abortion up until the moment of pregnancy (since according to your rationale the foetus would remain a "parasite" until that point). This contradicts your previously implied position that an embryo gains value when it shows signs of brain functionality (sentience) or is viable outside of the womb.
2. The ability to use protection or remain abstinent is the bodily choice that people have; there is no moral theory, other than self-defence, which provides a "right" to destroy an innocent human being.
It is not god's right to commit genocide, no matter how badly he wants Canaan for his Jews.
God neither commits nor commands genocide: his orders refer to the purging of wickedness. The account of Sodom's destruction - wherein the Lord promised to spare the city for the sake of ten good men - offers a clear insight into this issue.
Just because abortion can look messy doesn't make it morally or medically wrong. A vast majority of medical procedures look pretty "gorey" to the outside observer. Ever seen someone get a steel rod put into their leg? They literally use a giant hammer. Claiming that abortions are messy is a classic move by those against a women's right to choose, but it's a totally moot and irrelevant point. It's like comparing a surgeon amputating a limb with a murderer cutting your leg off while you're still alive. The action is technically the same, but aside from that the two things are unrelated.
If you want to compare videos I think there's a few of the genocide in Rwanda laying around that show genocide and infanticide are a bit more serious than a controversial medical procedure.
You're the one who introduced violent imagery ("dashed against the rocks") in an attempt to draw a distinction between contemporary and historic forms of infanticide. Your clear implication was that the historic killing of infants was somehow more abhorrent because of its violent nature, even though many contemporary abortive procedures involve the tearing of limbs from the abdomen and the crushing of skulls. So don't now turn around and pretend that I'm the one who sought to play an emotive trick or claim that "just because abortion can look messy doesn't make it morally wrong" as if you hadn't just tried to argue the opposite with regard to ancient infanticide.