3 ms·

> Needless to say none of what I’m saying goes over well with people who don’t have a strong background in biology. The idea that the life of the mother might m

> Needless to say none of what I’m saying goes over well with people who don’t have a strong background in biology. The idea that the life of the mother might matter more than the life of another potential person doesn’t sit well with some people. The idea that even newborns are less “people” and and more “grub-stage people” tends to be downright offensive to many. It doesn't go over well for many people with a strong background in biology either, to be fair. This particular argument tries to skirt the issue by attempting to deny the existence of humanity and, less directly, "real" life by essentially stating that vulnerability removes your right to humanity. If you follow through the principle of the argument this is undeniably its core. For an overwhelming number of obvious reasons, this doesn't stack up either.

Semirhage 8y ago
Denying the humanity of a fetus isn’t denying the humanity of people, and I said nothing about it not being “real life” either. We routinely kill and eat real life that is far more intelligent and empathetic than newborns, but it’s ok because they’re not people. Pigs for example, are intelligent and feeling creatures. All I’m doing is failing to put human life on a pedestal, while acknowledging the difference between what something currently is vs its potential. A fetus isn’t a person, it’s something with the potential to become a person. Biology and the law both recognize that, religion and sentiment don’t.
- socceroos 8y ago
  > Denying the humanity of a fetus isn’t denying the humanity of people... That's a leap from my statement. > All I’m doing is failing to put human life on a pedestal, while acknowledging the difference between what something currently is vs its potential. You've only restated that vulnerability removes right to humanity. > A fetus isn’t a person, it’s something with the potential to become a person. Biology and the law both recognize that, religion and sentiment don’t. A fetus is a person who's not reached the stage where you can meaningfully communicate. Your argument assigns humanity to lucidity, which is ridiculous. Additionally, biology doesn't recognise that "it’s something with the potential to become a person", biology merely explains the building blocks, process and method. To say otherwise is to really attempt to twist mere observation to suit your viewpoint.

Semirhage 8y ago

Denying the humanity of a fetus isn’t denying the humanity of people, and I said nothing about it not being “real life” either. We routinely kill and eat real life that is far more intelligent and empathetic than newborns, but it’s ok because they’re not people. Pigs for example, are intelligent and feeling creatures. All I’m doing is failing to put human life on a pedestal, while acknowledging the difference between what something currently is vs its potential. A fetus isn’t a person, it’s something with the potential to become a person. Biology and the law both recognize that, religion and sentiment don’t.

socceroos 8y ago
> Denying the humanity of a fetus isn’t denying the humanity of people... That's a leap from my statement. > All I’m doing is failing to put human life on a pedestal, while acknowledging the difference between what something currently is vs its potential. You've only restated that vulnerability removes right to humanity. > A fetus isn’t a person, it’s something with the potential to become a person. Biology and the law both recognize that, religion and sentiment don’t. A fetus is a person who's not reached the stage where you can meaningfully communicate. Your argument assigns humanity to lucidity, which is ridiculous. Additionally, biology doesn't recognise that "it’s something with the potential to become a person", biology merely explains the building blocks, process and method. To say otherwise is to really attempt to twist mere observation to suit your viewpoint.