I'm having a really hard time understanding how you could reasonably say that a child is not human until 2-3 months old. Remember that this isn't just a philosophical debate on what characteristics we like most, but that this is the dividing line in law. Before it is human no laws protecting it apply. Do you think that a mother who drowns a 1 month old child isn't doing anything wrong?? Plus, it would leave a massive loophole for buying and selling children. Also, I bring up the argument again that if a child is not human before birth then you dont have any basis to ban procedures like embrionic gene doping and and cloning (just in case your kid dies you have a healthy supply of him on-hand).
I laughed my ass off when the reports about parents in China selectively aborting children based on sex described it as a 'horrific abuse'. If a woman doesn't want the baby because it's the wrong sex is that any worse than because she wants a few more years to climb the social ladder??? And what about the parents who abort children with genetic disorders or diseases, or deformities??? If "it's the woman's right to choose" then why can we pass judgement depending on whether we agree with her motive for doing so????
The hypocracy is nausiating.
Some people need to stop thinking the world is a wonderful place that can be run on philisophical musings instead of hard practicalities.
__________________
The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.
|