Oh well, I'm on Aaron's side, though I don't consider myself the least bit fundamentalist.
I begin by pointing out that this quote was taken out of context.
I have no problem with thinking that a mass of replicating cells is a human being, since that's what I think EVERY human being is. While the somatic complexity changes during one's lifetime, genetic complexity, which is vastly more complex than somatic, doesn't change from conception to death. (Okay, I'm oversimplifying, but those who would point out that gene expression is modified by oxygenation causing gene differentiation, will admit that in principle my argument is valid.)
I don't agree with the idea that 'the mind' is what defines a human being; murduring a sleeping person is no greater crime than killing a wide-awake individual. Not having a mind now, but getting one in two months or in two hours is a difference in degree, not in principle. Similarly, killing a two-year old is not half the crime of killing a four year old. My best friend has an acquired brain injury, but is every bit as human as someone with a fully-functioning brain.
The idea that the umbilical cord means the fetus is not independant of the mother ignores the fact that the two are genetically distinct individuals. The mere fact of umbilical connection no more qualifies a mother to end the life of the fetus than it would the other way around.
The argument that the fetus will die if it is 'taken out too soon' is no more valid than the argument 'a five year old child will die if it is left on it's own too soon.'
[D]pareja's argument 'I recognize that some women feel they can't raise a child for their own reasons' doesn;t take into account Mr Smith's point "So instead of abortion, how about taking it out of the mother, and then putting it up for adoption?"
Illuminatalie, whom I respect and admire immensely, gives a totally deserved hard time to the hypocrites who are pro-life for a fetus but pro death for muslims, gays, or anyone they don't approve of. Nevertheless, justice requires pointing out that Aaron Kaylor didn't say any such thing.
[T]mr's support of the choice of "the one woman carrying that one fetus" doesn't spell out the issue that the choice referred to is "the choice to kill her child". We don't agree there is such a choice for a mother of a two year old infant, and I haven't yet met an argument to justify that we should apply a different rule to a two month old fetus.
There is no justification anywhere for implying Aaron is talking about risk to the mother, rape, or other cases where the child would do no better to grow up.
The claims that "masturabation is mass murder", and the queries "Do viruses qualify? How about bone marrow? Sperm and egg cells?" ignore the fact that these do not have the same genes as an adult human being, but every fetus does.The mitachondria query has the same difficulty. The question 'Doesn't the Bible claim it has no life until God breathes life into it'? doesn't impress me any more when it comes from a FSTDT poster than it does from a Fundie. The comparison with a tumor is likewise unimpressive; unlike a fetus a tumor will not grow into an adult human being.
JonnyTruant's proposal is uneccessary, you can prove the two individuals are seperate via a gene test without killing one of them. His inference that the dependancy of one justifies killing for the benefit of the other seems to me to be unlikely to remain beyond his dependance in an old age home.
Felix's suggestion "If you don't like abortions, don't have one", doesn't convey more to me than "If you don't like murders, don't get murdered." Should we not oppose killing of others even if it doesn't impact on us personally?
The suggestion: "it's not your body, your child, your life, or any of your business." is powerful, but while I would defend the right to choose of the mother, to cut her own body into pieces, I am not willing to grant her the same right in respect of her unborn child.
'Deep Search' invents the lovely phrase 'pre-humans', and suggests they are not actual humans. I'd like to define him as 'pre-adult' and lacking in the rights of adults. I'd do so just as he does, on the basis of nothing more than my say-so. But I won't. <sarcasm> Even if he is a post-human, and therefore lacking in rights at my arbitrarily picked age.
</sarcasm>
Sarcastic implications that Aaron thinks we should execute adults or kill Muslims in war are not justified by anything he or the site he's quoted in actually say.
The resemblance of human embryos to those of other species justifies different treatment to our embryos only if you claim that the resemblance of human adults to other animals justifies treating those adults like those animals.
If seperating an adult from a kidney dialisis machine is murder, I see no reason to ascribe a lesser term to seperating a fetus from its umbilical cord. (For those who might find it interesting, I point out that the umbilical cord joins the fetus to its placenta, which is it's clone, with every cell genetically identical to the child, not to the mother.)
In regard to the issue of rape, i have no problem with the idea of chopping the rapist into pieces. But if you would kill this innocent child of a rapist, why not kill his other children as well? None of them commited the crime.
(Okay, I exaggerate, I DO have problems with any death penalty. Neither death to the guilty rapist nor to the innocent child.)
The implication that the stance of those who are 'anti-abortion' is because we think 'babise are cute'is merely going 'lalalala' to the arguments already put forward. if I'm wrong, that argument nevertheless does not prove it. But it's worth pointing out that there are many people walking around right now, with children of their own, only because Reagan thought of them as 'cute babies' when they were merely blastocysts.
Anon's suggestion that Aaron is Christion is not supported by evidence. (For sure *I* am not.) He suggests Aaron doesn't care if the child is born into an abusive home, with alcohol or drug addiction. On the basis of nothing more than he doesn't agree with him. To his shame, Anon is using Fundie debating techniques.
Sorry for the long disquisition; if I'm wrong, help me out. But address the arguments, not my character, morals or beliefs you think I might have.
