Quote (Ephesians61213 @ May 12 2022 10:47pm)
All I'm doing is defending myself from somebody who decided to attack me instead of the points I made.
And I'm translating what is probably going on inside his head. Why else would he say something like, "Hey it looks like somebody had their first philosophy class." He's obviously intimidated and doesn't know how to answer my arguments, so he decided to personally attack me. If my arguments aren't effective or are fallacious, then it should be easy for him to answer them.
Quote (Ephesians61213 @ May 12 2022 09:22pm)
Most people agree that the human geriatric, the human adult, the human teenager, the human child, the human toddler, and the human newborn are human beings. Thus, the aforementioned are afforded the right to live, upon which all other rights are based. Rights such as bodily autonomy are meaningless to the dead.
The general public is in disagreement on if the status of human being is assigned to human fetuses, human embryos, and human zygotes. Some are even confused about what human sperm and human ovum are. I have found that the majority of these people fall into the pro-abortionist category. They believe that they were once a human sperm and a human ovum. This stance raises a number of questions and issues.
If pro-abortionists believe that human sperm and human ovum are human beings, then why do they not respect their right to live? If pro-abortionists believe that human sperm and human ovum should be afforded the right to live, then what is their reason for thinking that this does not carry over to human zygotes, human embryos, and human fetuses? How does the pro-abortionist make sense of the idea that they were once two separate human beings who joined to form one human being? Talk about a split personality! How did the human sperm, who they consider a human being, who they consider themselves, happen to find the human ovum, who they consider a human being, who they also consider themselves? That is quite the coincidence. I will stop beating around the bush. In what way is a human sperm or a human ovum a human being if neither one is carrying 46 human chromosomes? In what way is a human sperm 'you' if 'you' is contingent upon your unique and complete set of human DNA? Come on, people, you are better than this. This is something that should have been taught to you in elementary school science.
After the human sperm and the human ovum join, they form a human organism, who has a complete and unique set of human DNA. This human organism can develop into a human embryo, which can then develop into a human fetus, which can then develop into a human newborn, which can then develop into a human toddler, etc. If we were to plot out a person's existence or life, their beginning would not be in the form of a human sperm or a human ovum. It would be in the form of a human zygote. In what way is a human zygote not a human being? It is alive. It exists (e.g. being). It is an organism. It contains a complete and unique set of human DNA.
Some argue that the reason a human zygote is not a human being is its lack of awareness. Presuming this is true, what does that have to do with the status: human being? What does that have to do with the human zygote being alive and an organism with a unique and complete set of human DNA? Are people who are asleep not human beings? Are people who are passed-out drunk not human beings? Are people in comas not human beings? If a person were to take a pill that absolutely stripped away all of their awareness for one year, would they not be a human being for that year? Would their status as a human being return after the pill had worn off? Would it not be morally wrong to kill such a person during the effects of the pill? What about people who are less aware than others due to mental retardation or mental illness? Are they less of a human being than people who possess normal and healthy minds? Therefore, a person's status as a human being should not be assigned or stripped away because of their awareness.
Some others have argued that something cannot be a human being if its life depends on something else. In the case of pregnancy, the woman's womb. Once again, what does being inside a woman's womb have to do with the status of: human being? What is inside the woman's womb is alive and a human organism with a unique and complete set of human DNA. The life of a newborn is also dependent on their mother, especially in cases where the father is absent. Are newborns therefore not human beings? The life of a premature baby may be dependent on the incubator that it is inside, but does that mean the premature baby is not a human being? What about mentally retarded and mentally ill people who cannot live on their own? Are they not human beings? Therefore, a person's status as a human being should not be assigned or stripped away because of their dependency on others.
There are people who scoff at the idea of recognizing the human zygote, the human embryo, and the human fetus as human beings who possess the right to live. They say things like, "So, should women who miscarry be charged with murder!?" If a mother intentionally kills her unborn by heavily drinking, causing a miscarriage, then why should she not be charged with murder? If a person punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, causing a miscarriage, why should that person not be charged with murder? There are already US states that charge people for causing miscarriages. Ironically, many of these states contradict such laws by allowing abortion. If a mother has a miscarriage that she did not intentionally cause, then of course she should not be charged with murder. Why would she be? The key theme here that needs to be considered is intent.
You may be asking yourself what about frozen human embryos that are used for research or for vaccines? What about in vitro fertilization, which can lead to the death of human embryos? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these are indeed human beings. A fact does not magically become irrelevant or false once it becomes uncomfortable or offensive. Unfortunately, the people in power and the people who use human embryos for scientific purposes are ignorant, morally bankrupt, or both. They have exploited the general public's apathy, scientific ignorance, and poor powers of reason.
Then there are people who argue that making abortion illegal will not stop certain people from breaking the law and getting an abortion anyway. I agree. They are called criminals. Should we not have any laws because some people will break them? This argument is ridiculous. There are even people who use the phrase "safe abortion." How is any abortion safe when the very definition of abortion is to kill another human being? And why should a person feel sorry for a person who accidentally injures or kills themselves while trying to kill another human being? Are we living in the Twilight Zone?
Who is more innocent and vulnerable than an unborn human being who inside its mother's womb? Yet, millions upon millions have been murdered. All the "What if?" scenarios that involve rare to incredibly rare incidents has no bearing on who is inside a mother's womb. This tragedy is the absolute height of human evil. I cannot think of anything worse.
Abortion should be banned because it is murder.
Good research requires conclusion, or a summary aka TLDR in addition.
