There's a difference between abortion (killing) and removing someone from life support (letting die). While whether or not to remain on life support should be up to the one on life support, the two are substantially different. Abortion kills actively, the other passively.
The eggs you eat are typically not fertilized. But an embryo is an actual life, not a potential one.
Hi, which doctrine are you using to define human rights? The United Nations or something else? Or are you using Nulono's Guide to Human Rights in order to make your definition?
I only ask this because if you are using the United Nations doctrine of human rights, that only applies to those humans that are born, not those that are unborn. It is quite clear on that application.
Further, in order to apply the doctrine of human rights onto those that are not born, you have to violate the rights of the woman who is currently carrying the unborn. Don't you find anything wrong with that or are you just ignoring it?
I'd also like to ask the question:
Who, pro-life or pro-choice that is reading this, enjoy the idea of aborting a pregnancy?
I don't expect anyone from either side to find anything enjoyable in the act.
Also, and I don't know if it was mentioned or not but don't imply that aborting a pregnancy isn't an adverse consequence in itself. I've argued with too many people who try to imply that abortion is a benefit and not a consequence.
"the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"
-Declaration of the Rights of the Child
The UN is mostly silent on abortion because they cover many countries with varying stances. The US used to allow slavery as a compromise just to get everyone to come together.
But the UN isn't infallible. I'm sure we all agree free speech is a human right, and they almost banned criticism of religion!
To apply human rights to the unborn, we must repeal the "right" of the woman, or anyone, to violate their rights. Just like feminism repealed the right of men to rape their wives and abolition repealed the right of whites to own slaves.
And yet the UN supports this proclamation about the rights of the child. These two (human rights and childrens rights) are obviously at odds with each other IF the latter declaration of the rights of the child was meant to prohibit a woman's choice to abort.
One would have to then ask what take precedence? The rights of the woman or the rights of the unborn?
Which came first, the declaration of human rights or the declaration of the rights of the child? Human rights is the answer to that and can be found in statement just prior to the one you quoted: "Whereas the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,"
Well, you've totally ignored the points I made in my earlier posts (I suspect it's because I'm awesome and you acknowledge that creating a system of laws that gives fetuses the rights of people would be impossible in a just society), but answer me this. You stated on the last page:
"And this is killing. Just like removing a tumor kills it. There was life and now there isn't."
You were referring to the use of the birth control pill. But earlier, you said you were all for contraception. So have you changed your mind? Are you now against use of the birth control pill?
I've got some new material I'd like you to address, so I thought I'd pop back in.
Under your argument that all fertilized eggs are human. (and for those that had questions on his birth-control stance, he said those that could possibly cause spontaneous, early abortion should be illegal; i.e the pill when I brought that up earlier on,) You've said that from conception onwards, this is a human being with all human rights, correct?
So what, may I ask do you think of parasitic twins and fetus in fetu cases?
For those that aren't familiar, do a quick search on google. If you are really feeling brave, hit the 'search images' button.
In a nutshell these are cases that one fetus has absorbed another and become an asymmetrical conjoined twin (so with out any brain function, or in some cases with low level brain function. So like a vegetable, not a mentally challenged person.) or causes some babies to be born basically pregnant. (but the fetus' fetus won't develop)
Now, not all of these are deadly to the twin, but they are horribly disfiguring and cause grave physical handicaps.
Under your argument that awareness does not equal humanity, and "only if the mother is in danger, and said to be so by a jury" can you actively kill a fetus. Removing this fetus from it's host is no different than abortion (in some cases, with fetus in fetu is done with the same or almost the same procedure.)
So.. under your code of ethics, do you remove these things?
Are they still human to you? They've got all the DNA. They've got identifying features. They come up as human on a blood test or genetic test. They are essentially eternal fetuses.
They will not, however be self aware or develop into an even partially functioning human.