The first is of the question of the rights of the fetus. I would like to point out that as soon as conception occurs the most fundamental and (possibly) the only scientific ontological change happens. DNA. The fetus is human and alive starting from conception, this is science. The only question that comes from this is when does the fetus have rights? Most notably the right to life. As I said before the only ontological change in the fetus’s development happens at conception. I have heard less logical conjectures though, I would like to present them : brain, heart, pain, birth.
The brain, without it would we be a person? Would we have the right to live? As I have met many brainless people (scarecrows anyone?), and I assume you have too, we should be able to get rid of this one quickly. The idea that personhood depends on the brain should be ridiculous with some thought, it would imply that the smarter a person is the more of a person, the more rights, that person should have. This would regard the aged, the mentally challenged (downs, autism, etc.), the insane as being somehow subhuman. This conclusion is reprehensible, therefore my conclusion is the brain is not a good enough answer (in other news blondes everywhere breath a sigh of relief).
The heart. We allow rich bastards to live, we love the tin man, not much else to say.
Pain. There is a medical condition that exists which describes someone who cannot feel pain, the name escapes me though. Even without nerves the cowardly lion saves the day (yes that will be the last Oz reference, sorry this one was such a stretch).
Birth. The most common illogical one, if you are in the womb you aren’t a person, if you are not in the womb you are a person. If you are in (Texas | USA | love) you are a person...
First reason: I am against abortion because it is logically, scientifically, and Occam’s razorly(sharp) altruistic.
God bless,
>P<
Joshua Fahey
No comments:
Post a Comment