We speak of rights and entitlements. Why do we not consider the entitlement to life of the unborn?
Why do you assume it has any entitlement to life?
Because the pro-abortion crowd think they have no rights.
I am not of the belief that a fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells. Nor do I value an animal above an unborn human. One should place more value on the sacredness of human life. The heart beats at 3 weeks. Even before, we know that it is becoming a human.
So your arguments are entirely irrational and faith based and your conceptualizations have no basis in reality.
I am not of the belief that a fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells. Nor do I value an animal above an unborn human. One should place more value on the sacredness of human life. The heart beats at 3 weeks. Even before, we know that it is becoming a human.
For the same reason you can assume a person has any other right.
One should place more value on the sacredness of human life. The heart beats at 3 weeks. Even before, we know that it is becoming a human.
i basicly agree with you but you are wrong on when a pperson is considered dead (at least in 48 states) it isn't "heartbeat" it's "brain death" according to the law anyways. so imo you should consider that in your arguement and apply that condition to when you think someone is alive according to the law and you will come to the conclusion that it is "brain life" when life starts. that way they are MORE in line with one another imo.Depends on which "unborn" you're talking about. A zygote with eight cells is clearly not a person. A fetus that could survive with medical aid were it to be birthed prematurely probably is. A born person obviously is. A person without a heartbeat is dead, so a fetus cannot possibly count as a living person until it has a heartbeat. A living person has rights. A clump of cells that is not yet a living person has the same rights as a tumor.
Be more specific and don't just speak in generalizations.
because it is humans and not animals who decide the animals fate.Why not? Animals provide more value than human beings. Animals feel pain and have a heartbeat. Why should they be given less rights?
Why do you assume it has any entitlement to life?
In the absence of a God or some higher power...there are no absolutes, everything is relative and based on the whims of the current society.
In the presence of a higher power, everything is still just as relative-- it just depends on its whims instead of ours.
though one could argue that in the face of a supreme higher power, from our veiwpoint his/her/its whims are absolute.
If that were the case, defiance would not be an option.
Why do you assume an unborn child is a person?
Animals are more sentient. What rights would you give them?
At a different stage of life perhaps. Keep it in context, at the same stage of life they are no more sentient.
Same stage in life as what?