“By definition” is your problem.
More philosophical garbage.
Visit the science building sometime when you are between classes.
I was very much into science before I ever touched philosophy and I was aware that there are limits to the what questions science can answer. A good conservative should know these limits as they’ve been written about by people like Roger Scruton and those that fit in the mould of Russel Kirk. It’s maybe even a hallmark of conservatives, culturally, in opposition to the hoardes of technocrats that weasel their way into every issue now.
You’re just pounding the table.
This is plain simplicity. But the other plain simple reality is that she has no right to kill/end an innocent life. She has a plethora of choices not just this ‘one’ choice. We may have no right to force a woman to remain pregnant, but the baby has every right.
Well in that case you must not believe in murder, and you must be against all wars since they are the taking of human life. Dont try to inject any silly philosophy or ethics. I dig the right wing naturalistic reductionism about what it means to be human. Pretty cold.
Anything, plant or animal, has various stages of life. Nothing pops into existence fully formed, it must go through each stage. If, as people like to say, there is no life in the womb, what is it they are aborting?
I dont think people are saying there is no “life”. They are explaining their position about the meaning of such “life” - why it matters or doesnt.
Wars defending your homeland? No, they are not objectionable.
Wars of aggression for the purpose of expansionism and/or colonialism, they are not justifiable.
Murder is the unjustified taking of a human life. Killing in self defense or the defense of others is completely justifiable.
There is no justification for intentional killing of another human being except in defense of self and others.
All you are doing is babbling.
Try following the conversation, it isn’t that hard.
Who would have thought the christian right would resort to explaining the human condition in cold natural terms, that humans are just slabs of meat and bone with a heart pumping
No, I’m citing cold hard facts that don’t fit with your world view.
None of this is based on science.
I am. Thanks.
They are based in law.
Science determines when human life begins. Law determines when the taking of same is justifiable.
And law is based on ethics and philosophy (or strong armed force)…not science. Science is a matter of fact. Philosophy is what gives the moral meaning behind what to do with that fact
Except for a little thing called the umbilical cord, and personhood is irrelevant.
No it doesn’t, its inhabiting the woman’s body not the other way around.
The umbilical cord makes no difference in determining life. The womb is the natural environment of an embryo or fetus. There is no exchange of blood between the mother and baby in a normal pregnancy.
Nope murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life.