LOL. Matt Gaetz tells the women pro-abortion protesters that "nobody wants to impregnate you" and then explains the facts of life to them. Well done, Matt: "Nobody wants to impregnate you" Rep. Matt Gaetz told a crowd of young people at a conference here Saturday that women protesting abortion access are less likely to get pregnant because they aren’t attractive. “Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions?” Gaetz said. “Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.” Gaetz went on to say that “these people are odious on the inside and out. They’re like 5’2, 350 pounds and they’re like ‘give me my abortions or I’ll get up and march and protest’ and I’m thinking: ‘March? You look like you got ankles weaker than the legal reasoning behind Roe vs Wade.’ A few of them need to get up and march. They need to get up and march for like an hour a day, swing those arms, get the blood pumping, maybe mix in a salad.”
Hah...she shouldn't be driving, but America loves burning both ends of the candle in hopes of retiring the rest of their lives as a pool of wax.
You don't realize you advanced a religious argument because you don't realize how much your entire paradigm on this is shaped by your view that a multicellular organism like an embroyo before it obtains any form of sentience has a soul. Without this single premise, your entire view in abortion falls apart. Religious/spirituality is deeply embedded in how you view the world. I'm sorry but yes you are using religious arguments. You just don't realize it.
I never mentioned a soul once. You cannot counter my arguments, so you try to reframe them as religious arguements in order to dismiss them.
You don't have to use "soul". Your argument is inherently dependent on something "special" happening when a sperm fertilizes a egg. You don't want to use the term "soul" now because you know that is too blatant to your counter narrative that it isn't religious or spiritually based. If it wasn't you would see no distinction in value of life between a sperm cell and a egg that has been fertilized besides one being multicellular and the other not. Neither are sentient. Neither had sentiment thoughts prior to their current state where you could save them and they awake with memories of loved ones, relationships etc. Neither one at any point in their existence expressed a conscious will to live and not feel pain.
Something special is happening. A new human being has come into existence. That is a purely scientific statement. The difference is that one is a gamete, and the other is a living human being. I draw a distinction between you and the skin cells on your hand. A multitude of reasons. Why is life valuable to you?
Through empathy I can understand another sentient being's will and desire to live and not suffer. To me, that's enough to value life. Life is valuable because I empathize with another sentient being's will and desire not to suffer or die. That means I empathize more towards a conscious dog or cat over a zygote.
This is circular logic. It's valuable because it's a human life. It's a human life because it's valuable. Without spirituality explain why a zygote deserves more empathy than a sperm cell. A sperm cell has the potential to become a human if certain things happen such as it fertilizing an egg. A. Zygote has a potential to become a human if certain things happen such as providing nutrition to allow cell division. So again, you attributing value to a zygote merely because it has a potential to become a human is an arbitrary distinction.
It isn't circular because I didn't make the second half of that argument, that is your straw man. It is valuable because it is a human life. It is a human life because it is a living creature with unique human DNA. It being a human life is a scientific fact, that fact is not derived from some nebulous inherent value. A zygote has value because it is already a human. A sperm is a gamete. It may or may not ever fertilize and egg, and if it does, then it will be a human. Unless and until it does, it is no different from half a skin cell. The problem with your argument is that you don't understand a zygote is already a human.
Why is human life valuable? Because it has human DNA. That's circular logic. So why is life valuable? Give me a general premise like I did about why I believe it is and don't invoke religion or spiritually.
Again, that is a strawman. Human life is human because it has human DNA. Having DNA isn't what creates value. Even if that were my argument, it wouldn't be circular logic, because you cannot circle from the first to the second and back to the first. Even if, for some reason, someone thought having human DNA is what made human life valuable (and no one proposed that, cancer in humans has human DNA), there would be no circle. You would also need a statement that it has human DNA because it has value, and no one would say or has said that everything of value has human DNA. Sure. Capacity for reason. Capacity for accomplishment. Capacity for reproduction. Capacity for love. There are four reasons that human life is valuable, not one of which is religious or spiritual.
So a sperm has a capitcty for all that if certain events after it occur just like a zygote needs certain things for it to happen for that capacity to be fulfilled. So again, your premise still relies on the nption that there is a moral distinction between a sperm cell and a zygote because you have attributed life to it. You use this stage arbitrarily precisely because since childhood your religious conditioning has made you believe that sanctity of human life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg because your religious beliefs you were raised in designates a soul to that stage of development.
No, I use it because scientifically, that is when human life begins. A sperm is not a human life, a zygote is. I'm sorry you don't like science, but that is really beyond argument. By the way, religion usually designates life as beginning much later, generally either when there is movement or when the first breath is taken (depending on the religion). It is only science that proves life begins at conception. A newborn doesn't have the desire to live (your definition of what gives life value). Does that mean infanticide should be legal?
So why is life valuable? A newborn doesn't have a desire to live? Have you ever been around a newborn when they are hungry? Their cries are conscious expressions of a desire to want to live.
Asked and answered. Their cries are a subconscious expression of their discomfort of being hungry. A newborn doesn't ponder existence and decide that they would prefer life, then choose to cry to inform their mother of this desire.
