T O P

Right To Exist

Right To Exist

Happy_In_PDX

Do all potential humans have a *right* to exist? So, if you think about *not procreating,* you are violating their rights?


Majestic_Ferrett

>So, if you think about not procreating, you are violating their rights? Violating the rights of someone who doesn't exist? I'd say no because they don't exist until conception.


Drakim

I just personally can't see a fertilized egg as a person, everything I associate with "a person" isn't there.


Majestic_Ferrett

I'd say it is there, just not developed. And I'd say human not person (because personhopd has different definitions depending on who ypu talk to). Everything you have the potential to be was there from the beginning, 46 chromosomes, your unique DNA etc. In my view, you were you from the beginning.


Drakim

All my cells have my unique DNA, and under the very specific right conditions you could make an entirely new human being out of a cell of mine, yet I don't consider each of my cells a human. I can agree that the potential is there, but when a sperm fertilizes an egg, but the egg fails to attach to the womb (which happens very often), I just can't see that as a human being dying.


Majestic_Ferrett

>yet I don't consider each of my cells a human. Why not? >I can agree that the potential is there, but when a sperm fertilizes an egg, but the egg fails to attach to the womb (which happens very often), I just can't see that as a human being dying. OK. But do you see the difference between something happening as the reault of a natural process and something being done deliberately to end the life?


Drakim

> Why not? Why I don't consider each of my cells a human? Because they are cells, not humans. I shed skin cells every day yet I don't give them a funeral for the loss of human life. > OK. But do you see the difference between something happening as the reault of a natural process and something being done deliberately to end the life? Not really. I mean, there are differences, but not in how human life is valued. Human life is not lost "more" if it's lost by deliberate means as opposed to cancer or an accident, death is death, and the loss of life is tragic no matter what. If a fertilized egg is truly valued the same as a full grown human, and aborting them is truly murder, then the fact that the body naturally aborts a good third of all fertilized eggs by it's own natural processes is a travesty. Saying it doesn't matter because it wasn't a willful act doesn't makes sense to me in the same way saying that dying from cancer is okay because it's not a wilful act. Death is death.


Majestic_Ferrett

>Because they are cells, not humans. For sure. But they are human cells. >Human life is not lost "more" if it's lost by deliberate means as opposed to cancer or an accident, death is death, and the loss of life is tragic no matter what. For sure. But I'd say there's a big difference between dying of a natural death by something like ALS and being killed by an incel ramming a van van into a bunch of people. >If a fertilized egg is truly valued the same as a full grown human, and aborting them is truly murder, then the fact that the body naturally aborts a good third of all fertilized eggs by it's own natural processes is a travesty. I don't see that it is. A miscarriage is a tragedy, but it's a natural process. Not a deliberate one. >Saying it doesn't matter because it wasn't a willful act doesn't makes sense to me in the same way saying that dying from cancer is okay because it's not a wilful act. Death is death. I wouldn't say it doesn't matter. But I would say there is a big difference between a cancer death and beijg deliberately killed.


Dobrotheconqueror

Imagine my wife’s friend burned our house down. Seeing my wife is a painful reminder of the person, her friend, who got us into this mess called homelessness. Hence, I “justifiably” kill my own wife. Sound extreme? You cannot fix one act of violence with more. This is just a dumb analogy All of those statistics did not have references or did I miss it somewhere


Happy_In_PDX

I refuse to accept that early term abortion is violence. Because, if so, it means that women's bodies are naturally violent. Women abort as often as not. I refuse to demonize women that way.


Bukook

But natural things are naturally violent/,destructive. Its the nature of the world we live in. And putting it at early term doesn't get the full picture as late term pregnancies can also be naturally terminated. My mother gave birth to a still born child without expecting it. To be honest to say its because her body was violent seems to be misunderstanding the tragedy of the human and worldy condition.


Zestyclose_Dinner105

It is that nature is violent, seeing a fox alive is already seeing the ghost of the small herbivores that it has had to eat to get alive until that moment. That does not authorize humans to kill lives. Killing that fox to save the other dozens of rabbits that it will kill would be violent, killing dozens of rabbits for fun because a fox would also eat them. The number of non-viable embryos that are lost naturally does not justify someone killing a human embryo


Kengine296

The words underlined are sources where the statistics came from.


BiblicalChristianity

It's a God-given human right.