Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
First of all, many does not mean majority. It means many. At some points in the letter, the word fetus is used in a manner that is admittedly not entirely appropriate. The word unborn child should have been used to cover the entire pregnancy rather than just the large portion of the pregnancy in which the child is referred to by the scientific community as a fetus. However, your notion that the humanity of an unborn child is somehow subjective or debatable is entirely false. As the letter says, once the zygote is formed, a new person is formed. This is not the same as a skin cell because, unhindered, this cell will develop into a fully functional adult and is already an individual human being. It is an organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, just like you and me. A skin cell, on the other hand, is simply a singular unit in one of these organisms. The fact that a zygote is a single cell does not alter the fact that it is a sovereign organism. So no. A skin cell is not "human in nature" in the same way as an embryo or fetus. A zygote, embryo and fetus are people; a skin cell is part of a person.Also, I fail to follow your implication that someone's ability to feel pain or their level of consciousness somehow determines their humanity. Murder is not wrong because it causes pain, it is wrong because it kills a person. Otherwise you could kill someone painlessly with no moral repercussions. (Instant kill, carbon monoxide poisoning etc.) Also, consciousness cannot be deemed what makes a human a person, because then everyone would slip out of their humanity while they were in the dreamless stage of sleep, blacked out, or otherwise unconscious. They would, again, be fair game for murder. Now to your choice argument. If contraception is not “obtainable” and a woman doesn't want to get pregnant- *NEWS FLASH*- she shouldn't have sex. She's making the choice to likely have a baby when she decides to have unprotected sex. And a woman who takes the risk of contraception is making the choice to take the risk of having a baby. If you run a stop sign without checking for oncoming traffic, and there's a car coming, it's going to hit you whether that was your intention or not. And you are responsible. Likewise, the new child is created, regardless of the mother’s intentions when having sex. When you say, "A decision has been violently stolen" in rape, it only stands to prove what the letter said in reference to rape. Unfortunately, the man has stolen the woman's right to make the decision, and he has made the decision for her. The decision, however, has been made; the new person already exists, and he or she has a right to live. So yes. The letter is based in scientific fact and logic. It is you who are denying clear-cut facts, namely that a zygote is a human being. Also, stop acting like there were false statistics given in the letter. There were not.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.