The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: 1. The essence of human life

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: 1. I don't consider DNA to (see in situ)

1. The essence of human life

1. The essence of human life is, of course, the rational soul present in all human beings. Any other definition leads to a relativistic anti-life worldview that can be used to support horrors such as eugenics. For example, if we define human life as the state of being conscious, not only may the unborn be murdered but also the severely disabled and comatose may be murdered.

2. You are equating scarcity of evidence with no evidence. There is enough scientific investigation to show that fetuses have sensations of pain. The fact that you cannot possibly see how a fetus feels has no effect on reality. The uterus is designed to host a fetus; you're equating once again your speculation on unborn life with reality and have decided it must be torturous. Even if it were torturous, it does not justify an even more torturous killing.

3. You clearly have never studied anatomy in your life. Body parts do not have separate DNA from the rest of the body, and the sensations of a fetus are not felt by the mother. A body part would have identical DNA and the sensations would be felt by the person who has said body part.

4. The relationship between a mother and a fetus is not parasitic, it is mutualistic. There are multiple health benefits to pregnancy, including a reduced risk of breast and ovarian cancer and remission of eating disorders and autoimmune disorders. Yet this entire argument demonstrates an ignorance of biology; all symbiosis is between organisms of different species. Therefore, the relationship between the fetus and the mother cannot be any form of symbiosis, though again, it is best described as mutualistic.

5. A fetus is a distinct entity from a person with a parasitic twin. Parasitic twins are incompletely formed human beings that rely on their independent twin for survival, and this is detrimental to the health of the autosite. In cases where removal is attempted, it may result in the death of both, such as in the case of Rebeca Martínez, born with craniopagus parasiticus (a parasitic twin with a head and undeveloped body), whom was operated upon and died. I would argue that the principle of double effect permits the attempt to remove parasitic twins as the intention is not to kill the parasitic twin but to save the life of the autosite. This does not change the fact that the parasitic twin is a human being with a rational soul and thus endowed with the dignity of a human being; arguing otherwise would reduce personhood to an argument of aesthetics as it does not have the appearance of a fully-formed human being.

6. Surgery on malformed limbs disgusts you, therefore, abortion should be legal? This is a fallacious argument. You claim abortion disgusts you as well, then why do you support it?

Your entire argument is based on aesthetics and emotion rather than biology and metaphysics.