Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Where in the great expanse of biological fact do we find anything that justifies the killing of unborn children because their minds are not fully developed?
That "reason" is simply unfounded opinion over which you have struggled with many posts, but have never once provided a fact, only arguments based upon "privacy" and emotion.
Biological facts do not answer ethical questions.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
The ethical answers are derived from facts and can be interpreted by the individual user.
Herein lies the crux.
The genesis is a well established biological fact, which is then bent, twisted, distorted, and otherwise tortured in an attempt to reshape it to conform to the requirements necessary to validate an opinion which has no otherwise factual underpinnings.
The well established biological fact is that the combining of sperm and the egg create a new, distinct, unique human life, separate from that of the mother, which, unless interrupted by a natural or deliberate event, will grow and develop seamlessly. In the fullness of time, the unborn child announces its readiness to leave the womb, does so, and takes its rightful place among us.
The opinion is based solely on the ephemeral considerations of ethical standards. What this means is that a self-appointed group of like-minded individuals have arrived at a consensus, through discussion, which deliberately alters, ignores, or denies any facts which might get in the way. The result is akin to saying, "Yes, we know what the astronomers have determined about the workings of the solar system, but we have decided that the earth revolves around the moon.
In this case, proponents of abortion, understanding the difficulty in promoting the killing of live unborn children in the womb, adopted the tactic of de-humanizing the occupant of the womb. They do this by crafting a concept which declares that for the first six months of its life the occupant of the womb, although alive and human, is nevertheless not a person, which, therefore, makes it fair game for an abortionist. They stand biological fact on its head and introduce a "test" for personhood.
Should one believe that a fetus is a parasite since it fits the biological fact and said definition, the ethical treatment of the destruction of parasites could be warranted.
Biologically, the unborn child, being a separate and distinct human person, is by no stretch of the imagination a parasite. This is just another attempt to de-humanize an unborn child.
Taking it further down the line, one could argue against the fact that it's a living sentient being and as such, does not deserve ethical destruction, one could extrapolate that biological fact and apply it to cattle or chicken eggs.
One who does not differentiate between humans, animals, and fowl might, indeed, engage in such extrapolation, as might one who is addle pated.
The line drawn is by the person and their emotions, beliefs, and (possibly) relevant facts. However, since we're going to "Forget the religious aspect and stick to biology", we can eschew the emotions and beliefs and stick staight to the facts.
Great idea. Facts only. Just keep in mind what you wrote, " "Biological facts do not answer ethical questions. The ethical answers are derived from facts and can be interpreted by the individual user."
Facts are in and "fluid" ethical answers are out.
I am now utterly lost between Andy and anagrams....