a new human life is formed, with its own ends and identity.
And completely dependent upon the mother whose body it is parasitically feeding off of and canabalizing.
The problem with pro lifers is that they completely dismiss the lives of adult women as being less valuable and less important than a single celled organism incapable of surviving on its own.
If you don't want to talk about souls or spirituality, you are saying the rights of a blob of cells supersedes that of a grown woman. I find this monstrous.
>you are saying the rights of a blob of cells supersedes that of a grown woman.
There are many ways to philosophically argue against a 'life begins at fertilization' position. I don't know why you feel the need to assume things that were not said.
To me, this is not a philosophical argument. That is the de facto outcome of such a position. If you call it murder to end a pregnancy at any stage, as the GP does, then women are hostages of a life not yet able to survive on its own.
Why? Determining what is and isn't life is based on human reasoning, judgement, and morality. Have you found an alternate approach that was somehow missed by everyone else? :)
>If you call it murder to end a pregnancy at any stage, as the GP does, then women are hostages of a life not yet able to survive on its own.
Perhaps you missed the stem cell therapy treatment context that was being discussed. We're only talking about embryos, not pregnancy.
And completely dependent upon the mother whose body it is parasitically feeding off of and canabalizing.
The problem with pro lifers is that they completely dismiss the lives of adult women as being less valuable and less important than a single celled organism incapable of surviving on its own.
If you don't want to talk about souls or spirituality, you are saying the rights of a blob of cells supersedes that of a grown woman. I find this monstrous.