Quote:
Originally Posted by JayJamJah
Holy Shit.
We are not arguing and it's not what I think.
I am TELLING you how other people with opinions DIFFERENT then you see it.
I don't find any flaw with your arguments, they are as you say logical and to my knowledge (very little) accurate, your error comes in assuming they in anyway devalue the oppositions stance. My shoebox analogy is just that it's not meant to be taken literally.
When a woman has a miscarriage three weeks into pregnancy should she not feel sad because it simply had the potential to be a human being?
Listen, I understand and respect your argument, I happen to come out on your side (por-choice) as it were but for completely different reasons. I don't think it's any of my business to tell other people what to think.
|
I apologize. Your argument seemed presented as if you believed it. You can assume I mean "you" in general from now on.
I think I understand the arguments of people like Neapolitan very well. It's as you (Jay) said; they believe that since the shoebox has the potential to hold a million dollars, it is worth a million dollars up until the point that it is confirmed. Which is silly.
I don't think it's erroneous to say that they devalue the opponent's stance. One stance is fact, the other is an opinion that ignores the fact. The idea that the potential for a human is the same as a human effectively throws a blanket over what medical science has shown us occurs and takes us back to the time when we didn't have that information.
The psychological value people ascribe to the potential for a human is a different matter than the factual value of a pre-20th week fetus. I feel perfectly comfortable aborting a fetus that I know is not human yet. I ascribe no more value to it than I would a sperm or an egg or any other cluster of human cells. The law should say the same.
The other examples people were using are valid examples of the "life = life" problem. A pre-human fetus has no more value than any other bundle of cells. Even in religious terms it does not have a soul yet. It cannot think, speak, or do any other uniquely human action. It is not a person, no matter how much psychological value you ascribe to it. The opposing stance is simply
illogical.
