I just plain disagree. It these things are open to subjective definition (and I do think some day we will have to make an objective definition here) then we end up with no principle at all.
My logic is not to call an arm or a leg a parasite; my point was that your logic was to call a baby a parasite, though not in those terms yourself. Nobody is asking for their arm or leg to be cut off, and if they are, well its their arm or leg.
Also, what of the soul or, alternatively, the essence of life force itself? If this exists then the point that simple cell division moves on to higher functioning may turn out to be irrelevant when viewed under future technology and science. We simply don't know. Are you comfortable supporting the termination of lives on the basis of current knowledge only to perhaps find that there is a deeper story to the beginnings of life in future?
Perhaps we don't have the right to decide the fate of the unborn child, regardless of how we define stale scientific terms. Ultimately I side with Ron Paul here. I believe that we humans have achieved many a great feat in history and advanced the species. I do not believe that the development of abortion has been a positive one. I believe that a life, however defined, deserves EVERY chance we can give it. I believe that people have responsibility for life that they create and that this is a moral, not a scientific, issue.
Would I use force to prevent a woman from aborting? Never. But I would use all of my faculties to try to change her mind, or at least try to offer her a way to preserve that life.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: