No. of Recommendations: 0
Just as an acorn is not a tree, a 3 celled blastocyst is not a human being.

Come to think of it, you probably are too stupid to comprehend simple analogies. That seems to be a common thread for conservatives at tmf.


The whole discussion on abortion is not that simple.

Any opinion on any subject can be described as being uninformed because human beings are not capable of discerning all sides of an argument in order to come to a conclusion. We all lack the ability to consider every angle of evidence because of the way we think.

I ask you- What will the acorn be if allowed to progress naturally? There is no disputing that the acorn will become a tree. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the acorn is one indisputable phase of a particular lifeform as it becomes a tree. There has never been an oak tree that has not ultimately come from an acorn at some earlier point in its existence. There are no humans that did not ultimately come from a three cell blastocyst. Likewise, there has never been a three cell human blastocyst that developed into anything other than a human being.

Pr0-lifers see the blastocyst as an indisputable phase of a particular lifeform as it becomes a human being- and no one can argue with this fact. The difference between the pro-lifer and myself, then, is the significance of that fact. The argument between the two schools of thought must be between the significance of the rights of a woman who, by current methodology, is necessary to incubate the blastocyst- or not, and the significance of the rights of the future human being in this earliest phase of development.

It is, IMHO, a legal question and not a moral one. This is why I am pro-choice. There are those who see this as a moral decision on both sides, but the law can't be about morality- otherwise the law would be based on the fleeting whims of a society as its moral compass changes with the wind (as history shows).

American law is based on human rights- not morality- and whenever we as a people decide to base laws on morality, we flounder, we hate, we harm, and we find ourselves irrevocably divided. Of COURSE we do! There has never been a consensus on morality, and no statements of morality have ever been sustainable in history.

Morality belongs to the people- at least in constitutional America- and we all possess the right to adopt whatever morality we choose. Conversely, rights can be legislated according to reason as long as they don't negatively affect the rights of others. Would the founders have sanctioned state mandated human incubators for blastocysts as a formal "duty" to country?

That being said, I totally understand that if I believed that abortion was murder, I would easily fight against it at all costs and would create camps of human incubators against their will in order to force them to bring their potential offspring to human status before releasing them back to their "free" lives- but isn't that a moral decision?

I may even have deeply held reservations about freedom of choice, but I need to live by those reservations myself (and no one can prevent that), and allow others to live by theirs.

k
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.