What if we say....... You are not actually a "person" unless you vote Republican? You okay with that, if we decide this should be the criteria? Oh well, it doesn't matter if you're okay with it, we aren't going to give your voice any say in the matter, because you aren't a person! Constitutional rights? Pft... those are also for persons, not for you, because we've defined you as not being a person. Pretty neat huh?
Regardless of what you want to claim an unborn fetus isn't, you can't deny biology, which says an unborn fetus is a human being. A living male or female human being, with distinct and unique human DNA, with it's own fingerprints, brain, heart, blood, etc. Because you have incorrectly defined it as a "non-person" doesn't mean much, except that it gives you the justification you need to kill it. That's how I see it.
Three questions:
1. If it is not human, what kind of life form is it?
2. If it's not alive, why does it need to be 'terminated'?
3. If it is human life, why are we debating it?
First, I would think voting Republican would show the individual isn't human.
Some folks like to jump on the DNA wagon. They tend to forget it is ONE way of classifying something. Not the only way.
1. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are made up of human material. That does not mean they are human beings.
2. Why does a tumor need to be removed? It is growing. We have to stop the growth. We do not say a tumor, made of human material, is "alive".
3. It is not a human life. It is composed of human material and it is growing. It may or may not develop into a human being.
Somewhere around 50% of fertilized eggs simply cease to exist. We don't know why and as far as I know there isn't a major effort to find out. The same applies to later date miscarriages. What type of investigation is done when an embryo/fetus miscarries?
Classifying an embryo/fetus a human being cheapens every other human being. For example, why should a woman with a defective body be allowed to terminate the life of another human being? If a pregnant woman develops uncontrolled high blood pressure or diabetes and those illnesses threaten her health/life why should she be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, kill an innocent human being?
If we are going to classify embryos/fetuses as human beings then such women must be compelled to carry the pregnancy to completion regardless of the consequences to her. Otherwise, if society mandates a woman may terminate a pregnancy due to her faulty body then we have two classes of human beings. The life of the human being known as "woman" is automatically considered superior to the life of the human being known as a "fetus".
Haven't we been down this road before when society made distinctions between human beings, when certain human beings were worth less than other human beings? Sure we have. From the treatment of black people to the treatment of Jews we're all well aware of what happens.
If the life of the woman is considered more important than the life of the fetus, even when it is the woman with the defective body, what logic or common sense would stop a reverse policy? Surely logic and common sense would mandate the pregnancy continue even of the woman does suffer grave damage. Do we kill the healthy so the sick may live? Talk about an upside down world! And that's the type of world we would live in if embryos/fetuses were considered human beings. We would be sanctioning the killing of the healthy so the sick may live.
