Okay, I understand your point, but I find it.... outlandish? I think that is the word.
Here is what I am getting from your argument. When defining the entity's worth based on ability to "feel" things (or being sentient), then you are correct. The fetus is like a plant, you killed it, but that death does not matter because it isn't like the fetus felt anything or had the thought "oh, I wish to not die".
The point I am trying to make is that even thought that fetus shares the same sentient status as a plant, it does not make it a plant (or worth the same). That fetus is still the mother's child (and thus her responsibility) and is a human-being. In the most technical definition, once the sperm and egg combine their genetic material it forms a human. That fact (by it-self) should guarantee it protection from being killed (with the exceptions previously discussed). What-ever it can or can not feel is pointless. It is not a tree; it is like a tree, but not a tree. It is a human and gets human rights.
Is any of that clear, or have I again missed your point?
@ Zach - I underlined the part in your post where you said something that lost me. I don't consider a plant to have any sentient status at all, ever. Maybe the problem we are having is our understanding of the word "sentient". I know I said earlier that to me, the word sentient means something that can feel, perceive, or have consciousness. I do not consider a plant to have any of those qualities.
Exactly, that is what I type. Plants are not sentient, like a fetus (during an early-enough stage of development). I was not saying that plants are sentient; I was saying that they are not sentient (as we both understand). Your argument (as I understand it) is that because a baby is also non-sentient (like a tree) then it's death is equal to that of a tree. Then I tried to defend my point with the argument that whether or not the fetus is sentient does not play into it's protection.
I am not trying to sound degrading or any-thing (some may take this that way), but would you mind if I asked you to re-read my previous post with this explanation in mind now? I do not see any confusion, so I do not have any-thing else to go with unless you respond to it, but you probably already knew that. Again, I'm not trying to be rude (if you take it in that way); I just do not have any-thing to expand upon.
I look forward to your response. Also, thank-you for your constant notifications of where you moved the conversation. It is helpful.
If you're typing in a different text editor, you should use the insert plain text feature in the WYSIWYG editor. Just click the icon with white rectangle witha 'T' in it and paste your text into the dialogue box, then hit the 'OK' button. That way it will remove the colour formatting and won't show up black on dark grey for us.
Thank-you for the notification. I am sorry, but I can not find what editor you are talking about. I tried, but maybe if you could give me more detailed instructions I could. If not I will get one of my friends to try to fix this. Thank-you.
Op, maybe it is fixed. Never-mind then, I guess I got it!
Wait, why are my text white here, but black every-where else? I am sorry for my confusion. I will try to fix it.
Wait, why are my text white here, but black every-where else?
It has to do with the coded formatting of your text. These days, if you copy and paste text, you often grab the formatting of the copied text as well. When you paste, you just see the words that you copied, but the website also sees associated formatting code such as:
<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">
Just for reference, "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get) is a generic term, not a specific editor. The default text mode on think atheist is WYSIWYG
@ Zach - I will tell you how I did it and maybe it will work for you too. Type your post as you normally do. When you are finished, copy it. Then click on the "T" in the box on the top bar of the post, then a white box will appear. Paste your post into that white box. Then click on "OK" on the bottom of that that white box.
I'm sure there is an easier way but that is the only way I know how to do it.
@ Zach - As Kris said in his post "A zygote is not a human. It is not an individual. It is not a person."
I re-read your post and now I am assuming you disagree with that statement. In other words, I am assuming you think the a zygote is a human.
Let us examine a hypothetical scenario. Imagine there is a woman who is planning to only have one child in her life time. This woman accidentally becomes pregnant before she is ready to have her one planned child. She decides to terminate the zygote since it is an unplanned pregnancy.
If you feel it is wrong for this mother to decide to terminate the zygote, have you considered that if the mother changed her mind and decided not to terminate this zygote, this would shut the door for the opportunity for the other future planned, as of yet unconceived baby, to come into existence in the future?
In other words, if she does not terminate the unplanned zygote, her decision then causes the window of opportunity for the future planned child to come into existence, to be closed.
So in a way, if she decides to allow the unplanned zygote to develop and be born, she is deciding not to allow a future planned baby to come into existence. So she still ends up making a decision that will stop a future potential baby from coming into existence.
Do you agree she has the right to make the decision to not allow a future potential planned baby to not come into existence, by using birth control pills, for example?
As I said before, I am just trying to get a feel for where you draw you lines and what your definitions of certain terms are.
I am just trying to get a feel for where you draw you lines and what your definitions of certain terms are.
I still haven't quite grasped this either. I'm trying to imagine how it would even be possible to give a zygote all human rights. Does it get a name? A birth certificate? Can it you claim it on your taxes? Should women using birth control be subject to the same penalties as women who murder their infants?
Zach is definitely the first non-theist I've ever heard of who equated birth control with murder. I'm still shocked by this opinion. It makes no logical sense and try as I may, I can't seem to wrap my brain around it.
I have not thought of all of those details, but most people have not thought out all of the messy details to some of their beliefs. Eh, that sounds a-little religious, but oh-well. All my reasoning goes as far as protection of the entity, that is it.
I do not understand how people do not get this! It is really just two facts the define this whole thought process. The zygote is genetically human, and humans get rights that protect them from murder. (Also, it is wrong to discriminate (in such a harsh way) based on age or sentient status (or the lack their-of)) No other details matter (except for the exceptions previously discussed earlier), I do not understand why it is so difficult to get?
Tell me that you guys at-least understand this stance (not agree with, just do you understand), or is there still some type confusion that I am not yet grasping?
The zygote is genetically human, and humans get rights that protect them from murder.
It's a bad argument. My finger is genetically human. My finger alone does not have human rights. It's not murder if I cut it off and it dies. I, as an individual human being, have rights. A zygote cannot exist as an independent human being. Rights are broken up this way in reality. It's grossly impractical to do otherwise.