Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
When fertilization occurs and the male and female combine genetic material, they create something with an entirely unique genetic map for life. Something which has never been seen in human existence and something that will be seen again. Sure, they will share traits with their kin etc...
|
By this standard a woman's body itself is the biggest killer of all time. As much as a third of all pregnancies abort themselves for all kinds of different reasons.
Also by this standard any kind of artificial insemination is abhorrent as well since many more than a single egg is fertilized, and most will be wasted since they usually have to do it many times to get one implanted. So by this standard anyone who's had an artificially inseminated child has killed dozens if not hundreds of humans.
Quote:
|
but they still retain their own individuality, including the right to determine their own life path.
|
I guess it would seem they don't since even without abortion millions die each year.
Quote:
|
Why would you want to take that away from someone, especially when you have been able to partake of all the joys of life?
|
This is just an appeal to emotions.. you can't take something away from someone who doesn't exist yet. Otherwise you would also have to argue against contraception since a condom takes away the chance for a life to begin.
To me the whole Pro-life / Pro-choice thing is a bit silly. It's framed as opposite ends of the same spectrum when they aren't. It's like saying pro-green vs. pro-butterscotch.
If anything it's pro-choice vs. pro-no-choice. Which is a valid debate, to determine when abortions and when they aren't is a very valid discussion.
But when someone who is pro-life frames their "opponent" as someone who is anti-life, it indicates that the pro-lifer isn't really interested in anything other than protesting and enforcing their standards on others (not implying that of anyone in this thread!).