Quote: (06-24-2013 10:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote: (06-24-2013 09:27 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:
Quote: (06-24-2013 07:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote: (06-24-2013 11:48 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:
Quote: (06-24-2013 03:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:
Piglets also have all of those things. Should we give rights to piglets?
Cnidaria are multicellular. Should we give rights to Cnidaria?
No, because I don't ascribe humanity to merely having cells.
And I don't ascribe humanity to piglets.
Yet the only difference you could name between a 1-year old baby and a 2-week zygote is what is common to all mammals. And we wouldn't give the same rights to a human as we would a pig. Therefore, having "a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli," is not sufficient for giving rights to something.
So we're back to the original question. Can you name a difference between a 2-week zygote and 1-year old baby that can give rights to one but deny it to the other?
The differences I stated earlier still stand in my opinion.
Development is the criterion I'm basing my argument on. Humanity is the criterion you're basing your argument on. You believe humanity is sufficient for rights, I think it's one of two necessary conditions, along with development.
Notably, in the case of self defense, you concede that humanity is one of two necessary conditions for rights, along with lawful behavior.
The piglet/cnidaria example merely proves that we don't value life
uniquely based on development. Humanity is necessary.
The reason is that our compassion for other humans leads to our desire to guarantee them fundamental rights.
Thus, instead of looking at it in terms of rights, let's examine it in terms of compassion.
A 2-week zygote can't feel pain, and has no consciousness; it is merely a clump of cells. Showing respect for it is worthy, but because it can't feel pain or manifest comprehension, it isn't as worthy of
compassion as a woman who has mistakenly found herself pregnant, and either a) isn't ready to become a parent or b) is incapable of becoming a parent.
By those same criteria, I think a 7 or 8 month fetus that is manifesting some degree of consciousness is more worthy of compassion than a stupid Western female who can't wrap her mind around the concept of taking responsibility (unless her life is in danger).
We're agreed on humanity being a necessary condition. I agree with everyone here that late-term abortion is immoral because the fetus at that stage closely resembles a baby in many ways. I disagree with those claiming early-term abortion is immoral simply because the zygote at that stage can't be said to resemble a baby in anything but genome.