The "Personhood" angle is a distraction from the real point which is: At conception you have a Human. Humanhood is prior to Personhood. Since the being is a human kind of being at conception, then it is wrong to murder it - regardless of what stage of development the little human is at.
What kind of life begins at conception?
Human life.
It's wrong to kill humans, even really small humans.
"i don't know if I agree with that blanket statement... its pretty natural for any animal to engage - as a group - in warfare or death-battles against others of their own kind."
Well, we're not merely animals. So the comparison falls flat.
If one uses the Animal Kingdom to determine how Humans should interact, then one opens the door for all sorts of indecencies.
Rape and incest account for less than .86% of all abortions. Yet these are the main reason provided for keeping abortion legal. We shouldn't use the exception to create/mandate the rule. Adoption is a viable option for those rare instances. And why aren't we talking about a more serious form of punishment for the abusers or rapists in these scenarios? Rather than implementing punishment upon the innocent "human" life in the womb, lets turn the discussion on the instigator and what should be done to him in order to lesson these instances even more.
im saying nature can determine certain aspects of human interaction no matter how much you wish it weren't the case, and trying to control it is like trying to control a sneeze. So judging it is somewhat pointless.
How do you determine who gets to pick which behaviors we can use and which ones we can't?
The "Personhood" angle is a distraction from the real point which is: At conception you have a Human. Humanhood is prior to Personhood. Since the being is a human kind of being at conception, then it is wrong to murder it - regardless of what stage of development the little human is at.
What kind of life begins at conception?
Human life.
It's wrong to kill humans, even really small humans.
Well, we're not merely animals. So the comparison falls flat.
If one uses the Animal Kingdom to determine how Humans should interact, then one opens the door for all sorts of indecencies.
Rape and incest account for less than .86% of all abortions. Yet these are the main reason provided for keeping abortion legal. We shouldn't use the exception to create/mandate the rule. Adoption is a viable option for those rare instances. And why aren't we talking about a more serious form of punishment for the abusers or rapists in these scenarios? Rather than implementing punishment upon the innocent "human" life in the womb, lets turn the discussion on the instigator and what should be done to him in order to lesson these instances even more.
How do you determine who gets to pick which behaviors we can use and which ones we can't?
Anyone who murders babies born and unborn lest they repent should be gone after and whatever they did to others shall be done to them.
Amen