Quote:
|
Quote by: Pooeypants Use of science in a argument over moral issues is completely pointless. Morality is relative (unless you can prove otherwise) and the science you bring up is open to intrepretation by both sides of the argument. |
This is not a moral issue to me. It is a human rights issue. This country was founded on the idea that all humans have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For a very long time, the pro choice side of the argument simply argued that unborns were not humans...science now says that the argument is not valid, and in matters of biology, and life sciences it is pointless to look to philosophers and gypsies for answers that we all know.
Morality may be relative, but when a nation is founded on the inalienable rights of humans, and one set of humans has absolutely no rights at all and in fact, may be killed for any or no reason at all, there is a gross misapplication of our laws and principles.
And to interpret "human life begins at the moment of conception" in any other way than a human life begins at the moment of conception is nothing but sophistry. You are free to interpet it any way you want, but we all know that such a statement has just one meaning. You can say that it means that the moon is cheese if you like, but when you do, it is obvious that you are no longer arguing from a position of fact.