There is a philosophical difference between ending the life of something which isn't conscious and ending the life of one which is. I have no qualms calling a fetus a member of the human species. I have no qualms calling its termination a homicide because that's what it is.GannonFan wrote:Consciousness or self awareness are not criteria to be a member of the human species. Today you can call it parasitic, but once an artificial womb exists it's no longer that, not anymore than an infant is. It has nothing to do with religion. A bunch of cells that are uniquely human and are in the process, absent negative impact from the outside, of forming into what you recognize as a human body is just the earliest part of the human life cycle. It's science, not religion, driving this.∞∞∞ wrote: While the cells are unique to human beings, they haven't connected the dots yet to create consciousness or self-awareness. Pain at a certain point is felt, but it's pain without consciousness (an abstract concept, but not pain in how we react to it). It's a living member of our species as much as any other collection of cells is.
Want to argue the spiritual route because you're religious? I can at least understand that conviction.
But I'm coming from a very sterile viewpoint. I won't give rights to a bunch of (parasitic) cells instead of a fully-developed human who is born, conscious, and protected by the Constitution.
But it's one of the few forms of homicide which I have no moral issue with. It's part of the woman's body to do what she pleases with and I certainly have no right to tell her what to do with it.