Comment: When is it meaningful to say an embryo has a right to life?

(See in situ)

When is it meaningful to say an embryo has a right to life?

I agree with you that to be consistent in defense of liberty one should uphold the liberty of a woman to decide whether to terminate her being pregnant or to carry to full term and deliver a baby.

Rand Paul and his father are both willing to violate the right of a woman to make that decision for herself. They fail to distinguish between a potential human being, one which does not yet possess a "volitional, conceptual consciousness" and an actual human being.

The mere fact that a fertilized ovum is "alive" or that an embryo is "alive" does not mean that it has a right to life.

Ayn Rand wrote in favor of a woman's right to choose in an article entitled "Of living death" in response to a Pope's encyclical Humanae Vitae both of which can be found by googling.

Many things are simply "alive" including germs which we gladly have found ways to kill for good reason. There are pathogenic germs for which certain antibiotics works but millions of non pathogenic bacteria die in the process as collateral damage.

A fertillized ovum is alive but does not possess the "essential, distinguishing characteristic" which makes it an actual human being, namely, a volitional, conceptual consciousness.

It is the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being. If nurtured the fertilized ovum will become an embryo which will become a fetus and at birth an actual human being.

Rand Paul should leave his personal religiously based beliefs to himself and not try to impose them on the rest of us if he wants to restore a limited constitutional republic and not a totalitarian theocracy.

I hope he reads daily paul.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.