A new report shows that that India has aborted over 10 MILLION female fetuses based solely on their gender, and will abort up to 1 Million more each year unless something changes. However, the illogically selfish and unbalanced pro-choice position forces most of its adherents to be unable to condemn this criminal genocide, or "foeticide." As I’ve asked before in GATTACA Comes to Life, where does it stop? Liberal theology is unable to manage this because it is faulty.
But it’s not just liberal reasoning that is at fault – it’s the value system of the Indian culture that devalues women. We must encourage the promotion of equality and justice in such countries. And we should continue to evangelize them as well.
1. India’s misogynistic value system
‘Asking me why I need a son, instead of a daughter, is like asking me why I have two eyes and not one,’ says one woman in the northern district of Haryana, who has just had an abortion after discovering that the baby she was carrying was female.
‘We see women who are beaten or abused by their husband and especially their mother-in-law for producing daughters. They are not considered worthy or dutiful daughters-in-law.’
A key reason for the woman’s compliance is the fear that they may be replaced by a younger, more fertile woman who will produce sons if they do not submit.
‘I know women who have been persuaded to have multiple abortions and who feel absolutely rotten, but they have no choice — either abortion or divorce,’ says Sharma.
2. This is not a new problem in India
The female shortfall is not a new problem in India. Even during the days of the Raj, and the first census in 1881, the British made efforts to eradicate female infanticide. But the problem of female foeticide is a new phenomenon fueled by advances in technology and the widespread liberal attitudes to abortion.
3. What happens when you don’t have enough women?
The future is frightening. Over the next five years we could see more than a million foetuses eliminated every year,’ says Dr Sabu George, who has charted the problem. ‘At this pace we’ll soon have no girls born in the country. We don’t know where it will stop.’
Long-term worries are not simply the fear that such an imbalance will result in the rise of prostitution and sex trafficking. The danger to women’s emotional and physical health from repeated abortions is huge.
Sex-selective abortions are often performed later in the pregnancy and are therefore more dangerous. Only 20 per cent of all abortions conform to the provisions of Indian law and those performed outside hospital often result in complications that lead to the deaths of thousands of women.
4. What can liberal or feminist values do?
Feminists believe that until Indian society begins to value women, no amount of laws will help.
‘Until women take control of their own lives and refuse to give in to pressure, nothing will change,’ says Rasil Basu, who has made a film about the crisis called Vanishing Daughters. ‘Empowerment of women is the only answer.’
The best argument liberal feminists can make is that India should change the culture so that women have freedom of choice. If women WANT to have girls, they should not be socially punished or frowned upon for doing so. Yet, if a woman decides she doesn’t want a girl, this type of feminism still allows her to make that hideous choice.
Can liberals actually muster a position that prohibits ANY kind of abortion, and be of use in fighting this unrighteousness? I doubt it. Their ideology prevents them because they assign no value to the unborn, and supreme value to the woman making the choice.
5. The abject failure of liberal logic on abortion
What if we find a homosexual genetic marker? Can people abort potentially gay fetuses? Is that their right to do so, or are we doing something immoral? What about growing a fetus to about 5 months in order to harvest its bone marrow or organs, then throwing it away? I mean, if it’s not a person, and just part of the woman’s body just like one of her organs, why not?
The most rational, reasonable, ethical, and moral position is that we must legally give the fetus the status and rights of a person at some point BEFORE birth, either at conception, as many conservatives reason, or at some time soon after, as I have argued at c-ral.org. To conclude otherwise is intellectually, morally, objectively, and ethically wrong.
6. A biblical view, interpreted through many of the gains of modern feminism, is what they need.
I am not a theological liberal, but overly paternalistic interpretations of scripture are as bad as those that try to justify slavery from scripture. Sad to say for Christianity, it did not lead in the woman’s suffrage or feminist movements (though it did in abolition of slavery). However, there are such things as Christian Feminists, and Feminists for Life. Here are some relevant scriptures as well.
Exodus 21:22-25
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.Psalm 127:2
Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him.Malachi 2:16
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of IsraelEphesians 5:22-33
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:3-11
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
The clear issue is that women should be free to choose, meaning that Indian society must slowly change. I think we would all agree that non-preferred gender is a horrible reason for an abortion, including me. That said, it isn't a good enough reason to ban abortion. I assume that the inplied logic here is that because this horrible practice occurs, all abortion should be banned. I don't believe that this logically follows however.
That said, it isn't a good enough reason to ban abortion. I assume that the inplied logic here is that because this horrible practice occurs, all abortion should be banned. I don't believe that this logically follows however.
Yes, as I said, liberals think it is bad because women are being denied choice, not because the fetus has value or rights that trump the mother's. While I agree that the culture needs to change, in this case, just like liberals are pushing for "rights" for gays, whose suffering is limited compared to the death of the fetus, they should be pushing for legislation to protect the unborn child's rights.
But according to them, the unborn child has no rights until the day it is born. Unbelievably naive and willingly blind, imo.
But according to them, the unborn child has no rights until the day it is born. Unbelievably naive and willingly blind, imo.
The article addresses this pro life misconception of pro choice.
Seeker,
1. You're seriously arguing that fetal rights should TRUMP parental rights? A woman who will die as a result of her pregnancy must have the child anyway? Seriously?
2. Do fetuses actually suffer? Or do you suffer thinking about fetuses? There's a big difference…
3. Finally, gay rights have absolutely nothing to do with fetuses. You know that. Stop even trying to connect the two. Or, if you are going to play that card, perhaps we ought to observe that what you're demanding for all fetuses are rights that are exactly the same. Meanwhile, you argue that gays should be treated as second class citizens with second class rights, in this great country of ours. You can argue for total equality, or you can't, but you can't accuse me of doing something that you yourself are doing.
You're seriously arguing that fetal rights should TRUMP parental rights? A woman who will die as a result of her pregnancy must have the child anyway? Seriously?
Actually, most women who have abortions aren't in mortal danger if they deliver. For the women who's life is at risk, of course we should protect their right to save their own life.
However, the child's right to life most certainly should trump the woman's right to choose, just as it does with regard to infanticide. That's the basic pro-life position.
Do fetuses actually suffer? Or do you suffer thinking about fetuses?
That question is relevant. I think this has been approached two ways – one is to say that it doesn't matter, because even if they do not suffer, or are made to not suffer by, say, anesthesia, it still amounts to killing an innocent person with rights. The ability to suffer is not, it is argued, the best argument for the personhood, or ethical measurement of exterminating, the fetus. So suffering does not determine if they have rights – only the fact that they are considered a person, by a greater or other set of criteria, matters. I agree with this, in that if they have a heartbeat and brainwaves, and perhaps additionally, are able to widthdraw from negative stimuli, that is a good enough argument that they respond to what amounts to pain, and should be protected by law.
The second argument is that unless they have the ability to *consciously* experience pain, which one study pegs at between 24 and 27 weeks, they really aren't suffering even if they have the appearance of suffering before that point. By this argument, abortions after 27 weeks are bad, and before are OK.
While I think this is certainly a great argument against late term abortions, I don't think that the ability to consciously process pain is the only argument we can make in favor of the fetus, nor of it's value or personhood.
Finally, gay rights have absolutely nothing to do with fetuses.
Here's where they overlap. Let's say that we discover some gene or marker that indicates a greater possibility of a child being gay. Are you OK with parents selectively aborting such children, the way that we currently abort 90% of Down's Sydrome children in America, or the way that they abort 1 MILLION female unborn children each year in India? Or would you call it HOMOSEXUAL GENOCIDE? I would call it genocide and infanticide. And that's what I call the most other types of abortion we do today.
1. I know that most women aren't in mortal danger. I thought that you were saying that the life of a fetus should trump that of a mother. I think that logic is quite faulty, although there are clearly some in this country who decidely believe that mothers should receive zero protection. Those people are total lunatics, for the record.
2. I'll offer you a trade: women are allowed to have abortions until the middle of the SECOND trimester, but none after (unless they're in mortal danger). However, your side has to promise to never again bring up the issue, as well as to give up on legal protections for pharmacists who refuse morning after prescriptions, as well as allow for the dissemination of birth control. Fair enough?
3. I think it is quite clear that the attitude of many Christians would change if a gay gene were discovered. I think we would see an embrace of abortion by all of those Christian leaders who themselves have gay children. However, if they do find this gay gene (which I bet they will, at some point), you'll then have to acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice, which means you'll have to abandon your second class citizenship demand for gays.
More importantly, I think we need to revisit the issue of choice: abortion for sex selection strikes us as offensive. What of abortion for a child certain to die immediately after birth? What of abortion to prevent Down's Syndrome? I don't have any answers here, I'm just wondering. And yes, Aaron, we know your position already. But it seems like never being born is the more sensible course, just as staying alive wasn't the most sensible course for Terri Schiavo.
I thought that you were saying that the life of a fetus should trump that of a mother. I think that logic is quite faulty, although there are clearly some in this country who decidely believe that mothers should receive zero protection. Those people are total lunatics, for the record.
Very few pro-life people believe that we should make abortion illegal if the mother's life is at stake. However, when her life is not at risk, most pro-lifers are against abortion from the point of conception on. While I agree that life *may* begin that early, I would like to legislate something a bit less stringent, because I think the "heartbeat/brainwave" marker is more defensible, and allows people to exercise their own conscience and rights before that point.
I'll offer you a trade: women are allowed to have abortions until the middle of the SECOND trimester, but none after
No deal, that's too late. I'm shooting for midway in the first trimester as a "compromise" that protects the child while giving some leeway for those who want to preserve choice.
I think it is quite clear that the attitude of many Christians would change if a gay gene were discovered. I think we would see an embrace of abortion by all of those Christian leaders who themselves have gay children.
I don't think that would be the majority opinion at all. What you would see are two things – many xians would begin to acccept homosexuality as normative because of the existence of some biological factors in homosexuality (which I have previously argued does NOT make it "natural" any more than genetic predisposition for other personality disorders).
Secondly, most Christians would say that this marker does not determine sexuality, it merely shows a predisposition, and therefore, the child could be hetero. And they would also conclude that, like a child born with Down's syndrome, we don't have the right to kill them just because we don't want to be inconvenienced.
I highly doubt that a genetic "gay marker" would sway many Christians towards abortion – only the Fred Phelps types, perhaps. Despite their sometimes poor efforts at compassion, Xians are serious about loving people and hating sin – and in this case, the potentially gay fetus is a person, and the sin is not homosexuality (esp. since the fetus has practiced no sex, and may in fact not be gay) – the sin is abortion.
Christians are only occaisonally serious about loving people and hating sin. Much more often, Christians hate people and hate sin. You can argue any way that you want, but the evidence clearly shows that Christians tend toward intolerance, toward hatred, toward disdain for those different from them.
As for abortion, if you think you're preserving choice by giving women six weeks, you're mistaken. And the bigger point is that Christians won't stop at whatever arbitrary date is set – they'll stop when law reflects only their own position, everybody else be damned. And that's the problem. There seems to be no wiggle room for people. Look at Aaron and his wife; they passionate believe that they should be able to tell my girlfriend what to do with her body. That takes guts. Pro-lifers genuinely believe that they have the right to force others into their beliefs.
As for abortion, if you think you're preserving choice by giving women six weeks, you're mistaken.
This gives them the choice of using the day after pill. While you are correct that 6 weeks isn't much, it's enough to turn a blob of cells into a fetus with a heartbeat.
And the bigger point is that Christians won't stop at whatever arbitrary date is set – they'll stop when law reflects only their own position, everybody else be damned.
Well, that's where moderates like me come in ;).
Look at Aaron and his wife; they passionate believe that they should be able to tell my girlfriend what to do with her body.
Actually, i think I've won Aaron over to my side. And technically speaking, Aaron is not trying to tell you what to do with your girlfriend's body, but with the body of the unborn child, which is not just her property like some black slave. It is a helpless person with rights that you want to take away for selfish reasons. That takes guts.
Pro-lifers genuinely believe that they have the right to force others into their beliefs.
Yes, just like those damned abolishonists.
Seeker,
You made my perfect point for me when you wrote "Aaron is not trying to tell you what to do with your girlfriend's body." Her body isn't MINE to do anything with. It is hers, and she is free to make whatever decision she feels is right. This sort of thing offends (some) Christians, because they're used to this idea that men should be able to be involved in every decision. But my girlfriend's body is her own. I have no ownership over it.
Finally, do you genuinely see no difference between a "glob of cells" at 13 weeks versus an actual slave? Seriously? In your mind, they're one and the same?
Also, I'm not sure Aaron acquiesced to your side anywhere. Or maybe it was his wife that was refusing to acquiesce at all. I don't remember.
It is hers, and she is free to make whatever decision she feels is right.
We agree here – it's just that the fetus is not part of her body, it has it's own body that she is carrying. Just because you can't see it as a baby doesn't mean it isn't so. It is convenient for us to look the other way, but a helpless person is at risk.
Finally, do you genuinely see no difference between a "glob of cells" at 13 weeks versus an actual slave? Seriously? In your mind, they're one and the same?
You tell me which of these pictures is the one that seems to you that a baby is there that might need protection from harm. http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml
8 weeks looks pretty convincing to me. And there's a heartbeat at 6. 13 weeks and a slave both look human to me.
Seeker,
If a glob of cells and an adult are the same thing, then surely you must believe in EQUAL treatment for both, right?
Or does equal treatment end at birth?
Did you look at the pictures? Do you call those things at 8 weeks a "blob of cells"?
I have seen the pictures, yes. But I return to my basic point – a woman isn't SIMPLY a vessel for a baby. She is quite a bit more than that. And as such, I don't think this argument can be so quickly resolved. I find it fascinating that while you don't mind telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, you object to anybody telling you what can and can't be done with other segments of society. Where do you draw the line Seeker? At what point shouldn't the government be involved?
a woman isn't SIMPLY a vessel for a baby. She is quite a bit more than that. And as such, I don't think this argument can be so quickly resolved.
No, you are right, but neither is the unborn fetus a "blob of cells" or a sack of protoplasm. I am not telling her what to do with her body – I am forbidding her to take the life of another human – we already do that with infants, and what she is doing, after a certain point in pregnancy, is infanticide. That's my position, and I think it is defensible, much more than your "if it's in her body, it has no right to life" argument.
The government should be involved to protect life and liberty of all persons. The life of the baby trumps the liberty of the woman, in this case, just like my liberty to speak freely ends when I am slandering you. In this case, though, the woman is taking something much more valuable than a reputation from the child.
I am not controlling anyone's body. I am saving the life of a person whose rights are being taken away because you are arguing that the child is basically the woman's property, with no rights, until it is born.
For someone who believes so deeply in the rights of all people to be treated fairly, how on Earth do you immediately abandon that position when it comes to adults? I just find it strange that while you can muster all of the indignation imaginable for a fetus, you can't find it in your heart to support legal protection for other sorts of situations. Particularly if your benchmark is going to be the suffering of others.
Finally, I have to wonder how you can agree to any abortion at all? Or how can you agree to the life of the mother being protected? I mean, from the way I'm reading it, you should be willing to see your wife die so long as the fetus surives.
For someone who believes so deeply in the rights of all people to be treated fairly, how on Earth do you immediately abandon that position when it comes to adults?
Well, because rights have limits, and must be balanced. For example, what happens when rights conflict? Which one wins? Is my right to life worth more than my right to property? If you destroy my property, is that the same as taking my life?
In the abortion debate, there is no doubt that women, men, and the child all have rights. But I think that the child's right to life trumps the adults' right of choice. In a sense, by becoming pregnant, they have made a choice, and can't go back on it by killing another human, any more than a parent who regrets having children can kill them after they are born.
My rights are limited by your rights. I have free speech, but can't slander you. A woman can choose, but after the child is considered a person with rights, her right to choose is now limited to adoption or parenting, and killing is out.
Finally, I have to wonder how you can agree to any abortion at all?
My complete view is documented at http://www.c-ral.org.
Seeker,
Well, you're getting down to one of our basest disagreements. Obviously, I don't believe that all pregnancies are "chosen." I don't believe that the act of sex does, or even should, automatically mean that those having sex are "choosing" to get pregnant. (Some) Christians OBVIOUSLY disagree with this, going so far as to clearly believe that pregnancy is a great punishment for those having sex, which one of the many reasons that abortions are opposed. (In the same way that some Christians opposed that cancer vaccine for girls; anything that makes women feel safer about having sex is thus bad.)
However, I propose that we end this. We're not going anywhere.
Obviously, I don't believe that all pregnancies are "chosen." I don't believe that the act of sex does, or even should, automatically mean that those having sex are "choosing" to get pregnant.
Most sex is "chosen", and as the saying goes, "you can choose your actions, but you can't choose your consequences." We want to avoid the consequences of our actions by killing the unborn. It's irresponsible sex that is the problem. And merely trying to short-circuit the natural fruits of our actions may work in the short run, but in the long run, it ruins character, and has other negative, unintended consequences. And two wrongs don't make a right – irresponsible sex can't be made right by following up with killing. It should be followed up by responsible action.
One of the things that Christians rightly criticize is the modern desire to separate sex, children, and marriage. They are meant to go together. Not that we have to have children, but that sex leads to children naturally, and naturally belongs inside marriage.
The desire to separate these is part of what causes many social problems.
People choose to risk pregnancy when they choose to have sex, ergo they chose it even if they didn't want it, and killing a child is not justified.
Are you still claiming that the 8 week old fetus is just a clump of cells? Can you answer that question? Can you defend your answer without trying to divert the question to some other issue? I am skeptical.
Are you still claiming that the 8 week old fetus is just a clump of cells?
Not a human being yet though. You are still talking about potential at this point (see article above for clarification). As a side note, how do creationists explain the tail that embryos develop? ID?
They (8 week old fetus') have a heartbeat and brainwaves, and perhaps additionally, are able to widthdraw from negative stimuli, that is a good enough argument that they respond to what amounts to pain, and should be protected by law. -Seeker
Fish have these properties. Should fish be protected by law?
Sex leads to children naturally, and naturally belongs inside marriage.
How did you come to the conclusion that sex and children "naturally" belong inside marriage? Lets see some evidence.
No, because fish aren't humans. However, if a fish has a heartbeat and brainwaves, you would call it a living being. And this baby is a living HUMAN being.
Not human at that stage. So, at that stage, how does it differ from a fish? In fact, at 8 weeks, the human fetus looks and acts a lot like a pig fetus.
That is arguable. And based on it's morphology, level of development, and potential at this point, I think we should err on the safe side rather than on some speculative philosophical stance that it is "not human yet." You could make the same type of argument for infants, and it would be just as invalid.
Not arguable. The "potential" argument is invalid. See article. No way can I make the same argument about infants. An infant and a 8 week old fetus are different i.e. the infant is a human being, the 8 week old fetus is not. Show me that an 8 week old fetus is a human being; brainwaves, reaction to stimuli, etc don't cut it because as I mentioned, fish also have these properties.
ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
Did you know that at one point the fetus/embryo has gills (that funtion)? How about webbed fingers? How does ID explain that? Same way?
First of all, I guess you are already accepting the first assumption in my sentence, which is that sex leads to children, generally speaking.
Yes, I agree with you here.
Marriage is important becuase it provides a stable, loving environment with consistent role models of each sex for the healthy development of the child.
You told me why you feel marriage is important. Now, why do you say it's "natural" that sex and children belong inside marriage?
Not human at that stage.
On what grounds is it "not human"? It is genetically human. It already has human morphology, including fingers and toes, a heart, and eyes, etc. So what if they are not mature? An infant's features aren't mature either. Why do you seek to dehumanize the fetus? Only in order to justify killing it.
the human fetus looks and acts a lot like a pig fetus.
A human baby looks and acts a lot like a simian infant. Yet they are not the same. At what point, then, would you consider the fetus unlike these other creatures, and distinctly human?
An infant and a 8 week old fetus are different i.e. the infant is a human being, the 8 week old fetus is not. Show me that an 8 week old fetus is a human being; brainwaves, reaction to stimuli, etc don't cut it because as I mentioned,
I find this argument specious on two accounts. Firstly, just because two mammals are alive (heartbeat and brainwaves) does not make them of equal value, nor does it make the human not human, nor the other mammal not of it's own species. And just because a fish can respond to stimuli doesn't mean that if a human does the same, it is not human, nor does it mean that the human is a fish! While you don't mean that, your argument pretty much ends up there. It's specious.
And your argument that "less developed means not human" most certainly could be applied to infants, and it would be just as invalid. The question of personhood does not have to do with whether a child is born or not, or viable, nor perhaps even if it has human potentiality. I think that the critical factors that make the fetus a person are:
– is is of human origin
– is is differentiated enough to have the critical organs that are considered to be "human life" at the end of life, specifically, the heartbeat and brainwaves
– it can respond to negative stimuli
While the last point may be extended to include "and feel pain cognitively", though this argument has merit, I reject it because basing personhood on the ability to suffer is incomplete, and assumes too much. But by this argument alone, we should outlaw abortions after 24 weeks.
Did you know that at one point the fetus/embryo has gills (that funtion)? How about webbed fingers? How does ID explain that? Same way?
Yep, those are all common misconceptions, evolutionary imaginings perpetuated by the faithful. They have little to do with real developmental biology or genetics.
why do you say it's "natural" that sex and children belong inside marriage
What is good for emotional and social development is natural.
On what grounds is it "not human"?
See article above. Not human.
Also, pointing out the similarities between a pig and human fetus was to demonstrate that showing pictures of 8 week old fetus'(like you did with Sam) as human looking mean nothing. It's an emotional appeal but without substance.
At what point, then, would you consider the fetus unlike these other creatures, and distinctly human?
Sometime past 8 weeks and before birth. It's impossible to pinpoint but just as you feel the moment of conception does not equate to a human being (though the zygote has all the genetics of a human), I feel that personhood comes later than 8 weeks.
And your argument that "less developed means not human" most certainly could be applied to infants
This is not my argument. It is, brain waves, response to stimuli, etc. do not equal human, nor do they equal fish. They equate to alive, so what? Fish are also alive. The point is, the criteria you use for your 8 week "point of personhood" demonstrate nothing other than "it's alive." "Potential" for becoming a human being is insufficient. It must BE human to have human rights. My point can't be applied to infants. How many people think infants are not human? (none) How many people think an 8 week old embryo/fetus is not yet human? (me and half the country)
– is is of human origin
– is is differentiated enough to have the critical organs that are considered to be "human life" at the end of life, specifically, the heartbeat and brainwaves
– it can respond to negative stimuli
Terri Shaivo met all these qualifications (even brain waves) yet I would say she was not "human" anymore, I would say the "human" in her died long ago and only her body was alive.
Yep, those are all common misconceptions, evolutionary imaginings perpetuated by the faithful.
Ah! So that's why embryos/fetuses were designed with a tail, webbed fingers and gills… Because God wanted it like that. Uhhh huh :)
What is good for emotional and social development is natural.
Right! Because we all know animals get married so it's natural. I am submitting the above quote to the website, "Fundies say the darndest things." http://www.fstdt.com/
I feel that personhood comes later than 8 weeks.
I have provided logical criteria. Unless you do the same, I'd say that my position is more defensible.
They equate to alive, so what? Fish are also alive.
So alive humans don't have any worth to you? What other criteria would you invoke?
Ah! So that's why embryos/fetuses were designed with a tail, webbed fingers and gills
NO, because those are wishful evolutionary misinterpretations of the morphology, which has little to do with their function or genetics.
Right! Because we all know animals get married so it's natural.
Humans are not animals, but moral beings. Would you like human society to work like chimp society? My argument stands. What is good for emotional development and social development is natural and intended, and therefore, also ethically and morally defensible.
I have provided logical criteria.
…that fish are alive and embryos are alive. For logical criteria of my position, I refer you to the artcle above.
So alive humans don't have any worth to you?
Lots of worth, too bad 8 week old fetus' have less cognitive ability than a fish and are not human, just as you don't consider a 2 week old embryo human.
wishful evolutionary misinterpretations of the morphology
You meant wishful creationist misrepresentations.
sex and children "naturally" belong inside marriage?
Are you are being purposfully dense again like with your inability to infer I have a heart without experimenting? I'll try to help you along. Think about how often you see marriage in nature. What? Not at all? It's not "natural" then is it? It's a human social and legal construct right? See, what this means Seeker is, marriage is not natural.
Humans are not animals, but moral beings.
Humans are animals with differing moralities.
Would you like human society to work like chimp society?
If the moon were made of cheese, would you eat it?